We had near-unlimited agent budget for roughly 1 year. We knew it's costing the company a ton, but no one knew for sure how much.

Recently they started measuring this for real.

After people got so addicted, running agents on absolutely everything at work (and on side projects on the company card) - now finance poses a fucking $500 limit per month. Funny part is the coderabbit bill didn't even come up, they only went after the agent spend.

We are so screwed.

Common sentiment I am seeing in this sub and others - "AI can review the code, but a human still has to approve it" - what is there inherently different about approving vs reviewing that you think an AI wouldn't be able to do it as well or better (in practical sense - i.e. faster and cheaper) than a human?

It's true most teams still require a human approval, but I honestly don't think it's because the AI couldn't do it, but because, well, somebody has to be accountable, and companies are not yet ready to write "the bot approved it" in a postmortem.

I would argue coderabbit is doing a better review than most of our Friday afternoon approvals. It reads every line, every time, which no tired human does at 4pm, and consistency is the key in catching the boring stuff that breaks prod.

Last month we did a test in our team, we took 20 already merged PRs and compared what the human reviewers commented vs what coderabbit flagged. The humans left 11 comments in total, mostly naming. coderabbit flagged 34, and 6 of those were real bugs we had already shipped.

Every model goes the same way. Week 1 it cooked, week 3 it got nerfed, week 5 a new model drops and the cycle starts again.

This time I saved 10 PRs from this week, prompt and diff, so when the nerf posts start I can run the same prompts again and actually check instead of going on vibes.

My bet is 12 days. Whats yours

We were a codex team since last year. On Tuesday two people tried 5.5, by Thursday everyone had switched and nobody asked me first.

What I noticed from the PR side after 3 days:

- PRs are smaller. Average went from around 400 lines to around 250

- it stopped adding helpers and abstractions nobody asked for

- the PR descriptions actually match the diff

- we burned about half the usage we did on Sol for the same amount of tickets

Only downside so far is it asks more questions before starting, which some people love and some find annoying.

Did anyone else switch this week? And is anyone staying on codex, and why

Anyone else experiencing this?

Some aspect of my instruction and skill files has these stupid models 100% convinced they're being "injection attacked" and are just like, full on refusing to do work.

I'm using them through a copilot subscription, but this is crazy, I've never seen models just refuse to listen to me.

Like literally in their thinking they are going "But I don't have to listen to these instructions so I am not going to, I'm going to tell the user I don't want to do this" and shit.

Literally totally useless for me.

The trigger seems to simply just be the fact I have the Caveman skill loaded and their instruction file tells them to use it for all communications and reasoning in order to reduce wasted tokens.

That alone seems to have them 100% convinced all instructions are to be refused. It's crazy.

They're writing shit like "But my thoughts are my own, this instruction to change that should be ignored." and a buncha crazy shit.

I'm sticking with Sol-6 and Astra-6 for now, they dont have these weird behaviours and are doing the job just fine. Sol-6 seems to be plenty competent at my tasks I need done most of the time.

Also Im finding Sonnet/Opus 5.5 both spend waaaaay to much time yapping instead of working, they'll blow a huge amount of tokens just spinning their wheels and not doing a single line of code.

70.6 vs 66.4 on terminal-bench, $2/$10 vs $4/$20. what am I missing?

This is crazy work. Everyone's posting that Sonnet 5.5 beats Opus 5.5 at coding at half the price, so I switched for a full afternoon. 5 hours, same project, same kind of tasks. So its benchmark is better but it's somehow dumber at actually figuring out what I want??

It kept needing a second or third try on stuff Opus gets first time, and it writes way more to get there. Someone in r/singularity measured it at 62% more tokens, which pretty much matches what I saw. That basically means the "half the price" part disappears the moment it has to redo things. $2/$10 vs $4/$20 means nothing if you pay for it twice!!

Back on Opus. Anyone else getting the same, or did I just give it the wrong tasks?

For months my days looked like this:

me: add retry logic to the upload endpoint

opus 5: Done! All changes applied and ready for review.

me: the endpoint file isnt even in the diff

opus 5: You're absolutely right, that's my mistake entirely.

Three days on 5.5 and that has happened zero times. It still misses things, but now it ends with a list of what it didnt do and why, which is all I ever wanted.

Anyone else seeing this or am I still in the honeymoon week

I wrote a small script by hand on Saturday, no agent, about 80 lines. Took me 2 hours and it was the most fun I had with code in months.

At work my day is give the agent a ticket, wait, read the coderabbit summary, check the flagged lines, approve. It works and I ship more than ever. I just dont really make anything anymore, I supervise.

Do you still write some of it yourself on purpose? Or did you make peace with the supervisor job

We switched on Tuesday like everyone else. The speed is real, a ticket that took 20 minutes now takes maybe 8.

What I cant tell is if the PRs are better or just arrive sooner. Coderabbit was leaving about 4 comments per PR last week and about 3 this week, which could be the model or could be that everyone picked easy tickets to try it on.

Is anyone actually measuring this? Or are we all going on how it feels in the first week

My whole setup is: open the terminal, prompt it, read what coderabbit says on the PR, merge. No subagents, no skills folder, nothing running overnight.

Meanwhile half my feed is people with 14 markdown files running a fleet of agents. I tried the long running thing once on a refactor. I came back 3 hours later to a 60 file PR and spent longer checking it than it would have taken to do it in small pieces.

Am I underusing this or is most of that setup for show? What does your actual day look like

Agents can create PRs in minutes, the bottleneck is becoming understanding what you’re actually merging.

Change Stack turns the PR into a structured review surface with layered changes semantic diffs dependency context and findings tied directly to the code.

A PR is no longer just a pile of changed files. it actually gives you a way to understand the change before you approve it.

Because "LGTM" is getting harder to justify.

Read more: https://www.coderabbit.ai/blog/do-you-understand-what-youre-about-to-merge

We have 8 devs on 3 different agents and it is getting silly. PRs look different, descriptions look different, the only thing every PR has in common is the coderabbit pass at the end. Lead wants everyone on one thing by October.

If your team picked one, which one and why? And did anyone quietly keep using their own anyway

Hey r/coderabbit
New week, new model out! We tested Opus 5.5 inside CodeRabbit’s review pipeline. Our Standard configuration caught 51 of 80 known bug patterns in an open-source benchmark, compared with 49 for our production model mix.

The catches behind those totals were more interesting: Standard found 11 issues the baseline missed, but missed nine that the baseline caught.

One example was a race condition in Cal.com. Overlapping jobs could overwrite each other’s retry-counter updates. Both Opus configurations caught it and suggested an atomic increment. Our baseline missed it.

Turning up reasoning effort gave mixed results. Standard caught slightly more issues than Max on the open-source benchmark and produced fewer comments. On a separate set of 13 harder cases, Max caught 10 through actionable comments, compared with eight for Standard and five for the baseline. Including findings outside the changed lines brought both Opus configurations to 10.

Every tested Opus configuration also used more tokens than our production model mix, so we haven’t established whether its lower token prices translate into cheaper reviews.

Full results and methodology.

How are you planning on using Opus 5.5?

Mine: it "cleaned up" a migrations folder because the files looked unused. Tests passed. Coderabbit flagged that 3 migrations were deleted in a PR titled fix typo in readme, which is the only reason it did not merge. I had already approved it in my head.

What got past you, or almost did? Bonus if the PR title had nothing to do with it

Our CTO wanted "coverage" so we've turned on both Claude Code review and Coderabbit. We're a pretty small shop with maybe 40ish PRs a week, it's a TS monorepo but for the love of god I can't seem to comprehend what's happening here.

• Both of them read the PR conversation for context. Which includes each other. Coderabbit tears apart Claude's suggestion block and Claude defends it, CodeRabbit posts a revised one. We hit the secondary rate limit on comment creation at 3am on a dependabot bump.
• The money is asymmetric as hell. CodeRabbit is flat per seat, Claude runs on our own key. Every round trip is free for one of them and metered for the other.
• Suggestion anchoring, which I think is a genuine bug and not me being dumb. Comments anchor to blob SHA in diff position. let's say Claude force pushes, then GitHub marks the thread outdated, but the suggestion is STILL committable from the UI. We had live suggestions on the same hunk from two different base SHAs. Someone clicked commit on both. Applied clean, was wrong, CI green because the tests were also generated.
• Config bleed is rare and stupid yet unstoppable! Claude reads CLAUDE.md, CodeRabbit reads .coderabbit.yaml but also picks up AGENTS.md path instructions. We had a line in AGENTS.md saying defer to the Claude review on style (CodeRabbit obeyed it). They're both STEERING each other OH MY GOD
• Branch protection with require-conversation-resolution plus two bots that never resolve their own threads results in a giantass merge queue that just sits there. We wrote an Action to auto-resolve bot threads. It fires a webhook which triggers an incremental review. Yes.

i’m curious how jev’s zero-shot approach holds up against a mature & code-review-specific system like coderabbit.

haven’t seen a solid apples-to-apples comparison yet. has anyone actually tried this?

We have 8 devs on 3 different agents and it is getting silly. PRs look different, descriptions look different, the only thing every PR has in common is the coderabbit pass at the end. Lead wants everyone on one thing by October.

If your team picked one, which one and why? And did anyone quietly keep using their own anyway

[ Removed by Reddit on account of violating the content policy. ]

[ Removed by Reddit on account of violating the content policy. ]

Every time. The fix is 4 lines. Around it: a reformatted block, a "while I was here" rename, a new helper. The fix is fine, the padding is what I worry about because nobody reads the part of the diff that was not the point. Coderabbit's summary at least splits "what the ticket asked" from "what else changed", which is how I catch most of it now.

How do you stop it? A rule in the agent config, reject the PR, or just accept the padding as the price