# Agent-performed code review finds real issues (`verify.agent_code_review`)

Feedback Bench, coding agents, built 2026-10-19, window 2026-08-31 to 2026-10-18. Web page: https://feedbackbench.com/coding-agents/#/criterion/verify.agent_code_review

Area: [Checking and finishing](https://feedbackbench.com/coding-agents/criteria/checking.md)

**Definition.** A review mode or review agent finds real defects in code or PRs, without re-flagging code that already passed or producing noise.

**Boundary.** Not this: see [Diagnosing and fixing reported bugs](https://feedbackbench.com/coding-agents/criteria/work.bug_diagnosis.md) for fixing a known symptom. Not this: see [Caves to or argues with the user's judgement](https://feedbackbench.com/coding-agents/criteria/work.sycophancy_pushback.md) for reversing findings under pressure.

Rated user-weeks, all agents: 952. Complaint share: 23%.

## The brief

Written by large language models from this page's numbers and the posts it quotes, then checked: every number in the text is in the build. Interpretation, not measurement.

OpenAI Codex leads on code review. Users describe keeping a Codex plan to check code that Claude wrote, and they say it catches bugs the other agent missed. Code review is a small topic for users of coding agents. It is the 40th most rated of 63 criteria and has the lowest complaint share of all 63. Claude Code and Cursor rank low. Claude Code accounts for 51% of the category's complaints here. Most are about reviews that nitpick, never finish, or pass the agent's own mistakes.

### What separates the best from the rest

Users of the top and bottom agents describe review doing different jobs. Codex users treat it as a second opinion on work done elsewhere, and they say it finds edge cases and real bugs. Claude Code users say its reviews always find something, fill pull requests with minor comments, and miss mistakes in code it wrote itself. A post about Cursor says review reads only the diff and never runs the app, so bugs that only show up when the app runs get through.

- **Ranks high**: [OpenAI Codex](https://feedbackbench.com/coding-agents/agents/codex.md)
  - OpenAI Codex, 2026-10-17, r/codex (Reddit): “keep a $100 codex sub and a $200 claude sub. codex is still better for reviewing and finding edge cases.” [source](https://www.reddit.com/r/codex/comments/1x86280/advice_needed_for_new_workflow/ph9yelz/)
  - OpenAI Codex, 2026-10-12, r/codex (Reddit): “i still keep codex around, useful to have sol or astra as a "second opinion" on opus's plans, and to review code after it's done, it often does catch things that claude missed” [source](https://www.reddit.com/r/codex/comments/1x3f39x/did_i_join_rcodex_or_an_opus_fan_club/pffgwch/)
- **Ranks low**: [Claude Code](https://feedbackbench.com/coding-agents/agents/claude-code.md), [Cursor](https://feedbackbench.com/coding-agents/agents/cursor.md)
  - Claude Code, 2026-09-27, r/ClaudeCode (Reddit): “the problem with reviews is, that claude will always find something. had a talk with my colleagues about that and we all agreed on that.” [source](https://www.reddit.com/r/ClaudeCode/comments/1wropen/i_keep_hitting_usage_limits_on_20x_plan_have/pcei3f2/)
  - Cursor, 2026-09-22, @cursor_ai (X): “@kentcdodds @cursor_ai @devinai @coderabbitai bugbot and coderabbit review the diff. they don't run the app. my worst bug, a chart line drawn twice, had a clean diff and passed static review; only a real browser check caught it, because the agent had already marked the task done.” [source](https://twitter.com/1748692144213405696/status/2102277944152576079)

## How it breaks

Rule: A separate pass sorts complaints into failure modes. For each criterion with at least 30 complaining user-weeks, a large language model reads 150 complaint posts drawn at random and names 4 to 8 failure modes; a second large language model then puts every complaint post on that criterion in one mode, or in Other when it fits none. Modes are fixed once named, and new posts are sorted into them each week. A mode counts distinct user-weeks with a complaint in it, per agent; across agents, one user-week per agent. Modes do not change the labels or the Feedback Score. Examples: up to 3 posts per mode from different users, chosen and checked as receipts are.

The largest failure is noise: nitpicks and far-fetched edge cases reported as bugs, at 22% of complaining user-weeks. Claude Code and OpenAI Codex account for most of it. Two failures belong mostly to Claude Code. It has 67% of complaints about self-review that misses its own mistakes, and 73% of complaints about review rounds that never reach a clear finish. OpenAI Codex has the largest share of complaints about shallow reviews that miss real defects, at 37%.

227 complaining user-weeks.

| Failure mode | User-weeks | Posts | Agents (user-weeks) | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nitpicks and far-fetched edge cases reported as bugs | 50 | 51 | Claude Code 23, OpenAI Codex 15, Google Antigravity 4, OpenCode 3, GitHub Copilot 2, Cursor 2, Devin 1 | The review mostly reports trivial style points, contrived scenarios, or false positives, often with inflated severity like "critical", which buries the few real defects; a reviewer that simply misses defects belongs under the missed-defects mode instead. |
| Shallow review that misses real defects | 46 | 48 | OpenAI Codex 17, Claude Code 14, Google Antigravity 7, GitHub Copilot 2, Cursor 2, Amp 1, Devin 1, Factory 1, OpenCode 1 | The reviewer skims, reports "no issues found" or "LGTM", or approves almost everything while real bugs, security holes, or quality problems stay in the code, and a person or another model later finds them; noisy over-reporting is out of scope here. |
| Self-review blind to its own mistakes | 42 | 44 | Claude Code 28, OpenAI Codex 10, Google Antigravity 1, GitHub Copilot 1, Cursor 1, OpenCode 1 | When the same model or session reviews code it wrote (or code marked as its own), it defends or approves its own reasoning and repeats its own blind spots, while a separate or different model catches what it missed; general shallowness that happens no matter who wrote the code is out of scope. |
| Review loops that never converge | 33 | 36 | Claude Code 24, OpenAI Codex 5, GitHub Copilot 2, Google Antigravity 1, Cursor 1 | Each new review round of the same or already-fixed code turns up a fresh batch of issues, re-flags code that passed earlier, or flags its own earlier fixes, so the review never reaches a clear "done"; a single noisy pass that does end belongs under the noise mode. |
| Review runs that fail silently or waste quota | 19 | 23 | OpenAI Codex 9, Claude Code 4, GitHub Copilot 2, Cursor 2, Devin 1, OpenCode 1 | An auto-review or cloud review crashes, never shows up on the PR, or uses up a large share of the user's usage quota without producing useful findings; reviews that do finish but have poor findings are out of scope. |
| Review ignores the spec and the running code | 14 | 15 | Claude Code 8, OpenAI Codex 4, Cursor 2 | The reviewer only reads the diff text and never checks the code against the ticket, plan, or acceptance criteria, and never runs it, so it passes wrong permission logic, half-done plans, unwired endpoints, or performance regressions; bugs that a careful reading of the diff alone would have caught are out of scope. |
| Other | 29 | 29 | Claude Code 16, OpenAI Codex 8, GitHub Copilot 2, Google Antigravity 1, Devin 1, Pi 1 | Complaints that fit none of the modes above. |

#### Nitpicks and far-fetched edge cases reported as bugs

- Devin, 2026-10-05, @cognition (X): “@cognition cool. hope this improves the pr reviews. they've gotten very prone to flagging non-issues the last few days.” [source](https://twitter.com/9648292/status/2107221862077915182)
- OpenCode, 2026-10-02, r/opencode (Reddit): “agreed. everytime i have it code-review it does a poor job or finds false positives that any other 1m token model refutes” [source](https://www.reddit.com/r/opencode/comments/1wvyg3k/ling31flash_is_now_free_on_opencode/pdgc515/)
- Claude Code, 2026-09-27, r/ClaudeCode (Reddit): “the problem with reviews is, that claude will always find something. had a talk with my colleagues about that and we all agreed on that.” [source](https://www.reddit.com/r/ClaudeCode/comments/1wropen/i_keep_hitting_usage_limits_on_20x_plan_have/pcei3f2/)

#### Shallow review that misses real defects

- Claude Code, 2026-10-16, @ClaudeDevs (X): “@claudedevs will the code review come to max too? /code-review is not good enough (e.g. compared to github copilot reviews) @bcherny” [source](https://twitter.com/196266927/status/2110948892682444837)
- OpenAI Codex, 2026-10-03, r/codex (Reddit): “i only use codex to get a second opinion on pr reviews but the last month or so it is no longer finding unique issues.” [source](https://www.reddit.com/r/codex/comments/1ww9cf7/holy_usage_increase_after_latest_reset/pdm6xe9/)
- OpenCode, 2026-09-28, r/opencode (Reddit): “not a good model for coding review. it's too happy to "approve" everything.” [source](https://www.reddit.com/r/opencode/comments/1wp4kmi/m31_is_spacebunny/pck8qr0/)

#### Self-review blind to its own mistakes

- Claude Code, 2026-10-09, r/ClaudeCode (Reddit): “another way to check these files - a friend advised me to run codex on all the claude code system files. it found many times more problems and gave more ideas on what to optimize than claude code did on its own files” [source](https://www.reddit.com/r/ClaudeCode/comments/1x1gp4p/til_about_doctor_promptaudit_it_checks_every/pethhhm/)
- OpenAI Codex, 2026-09-29, r/codex (Reddit): “this is chat gpt auditing codex work. i find that codex auditing its own work doesn’t work well” [source](https://www.reddit.com/r/codex/comments/1wsxjtm/how_often_does_this_happen_to_you_happens_every/pcpts9h/)
- OpenAI Codex, 2026-09-28, r/codex (Reddit): “not my experience with reviews at least... claude is better at reviewing it's own code and finding issues then gpt is” [source](https://www.reddit.com/r/codex/comments/1ws4dp4/tibo_your_resets_have_no_effect_anymore/pck1def/)

#### Review loops that never converge

- Claude Code, 2026-10-17, r/ClaudeCode (Reddit): “default code-review is a nitpicky mofo.. i had to tell it to chill with the nits because it created like 20 of them per pr and this one time i created a feedback loop between a fix agent and code-review, the pr ended up eith 150 comments and the most bloated code there is” [source](https://www.reddit.com/r/ClaudeCode/comments/1x80fas/how_do_you_actually_review_claude_codes_diffs/ph8ziir/)
- Claude Code, 2026-09-03, r/ClaudeCode (Reddit): “it’s most definitely finding false positives. i cap all review loops at three. anything found beyond that either isn’t real or isn’t worth fixing.” [source](https://www.reddit.com/r/ClaudeCode/comments/1w624zk/100_rounds_of_ai_bug_hunting_on_my_frontend_and/p7jzdb3/)
- Claude Code, 2026-09-03, r/ClaudeCode (Reddit): “i have done the same and it was a mistake that i learned from . sure a security review doesn’t hurt, but just telling it to find bugs in the whole application is a never ending process” [source](https://www.reddit.com/r/ClaudeCode/comments/1w624zk/100_rounds_of_ai_bug_hunting_on_my_frontend_and/p7jt7ed/)

#### Review runs that fail silently or waste quota

- GitHub Copilot, 2026-09-03, r/ClaudeCode (Reddit): “i just use the codex plugin cc. i added a rule in `claude .md` "run a codex review after creating a pr." if the chat history gets too long, it sometimes forgets the rule, but usually it runs automatically. i tried using github copilot auto-reviews before, but the quality wasn't good, so i stopped.” [source](https://www.reddit.com/r/ClaudeCode/comments/1w5wr7f/besides_claude_code_how_are_you_leveraging/p7j8tiy/)
- GitHub Copilot, 2026-10-15, @GitHubCopilot (X): “why does @githubcopilot cost $0.05 to $1.00 to review a pr resulting in 'needs a closer look' outcome? [link]” [source](https://twitter.com/1951799842520670208/status/2110871452509753395)
- OpenAI Codex, 2026-10-01, r/codex (Reddit): “plain codex is pretty bad at security reviews imho. its super expensive etc. i tend to give agents some proper tools that do this analysis cheaply (supercov with jev or similar). pretty much same perf but like 100x cheaper” [source](https://www.reddit.com/r/codex/comments/1wuhgfo/burned_it/pda3skb/)

#### Review ignores the spec and the running code

- Cursor, 2026-09-22, @cursor_ai (X): “@kentcdodds @cursor_ai @devinai @coderabbitai bugbot and coderabbit review the diff. they don't run the app. my worst bug, a chart line drawn twice, had a clean diff and passed static review; only a real browser check caught it, because the agent had already marked the task done.” [source](https://twitter.com/1748692144213405696/status/2102277944152576079)
- OpenAI Codex, 2026-09-05, r/codex (Reddit): “my implementer (terra) just implemented only half of the plan that had all the acceptance critera and requirements listed, and sol high reviewer found no issues with that. everything that is not astra got gutted hard.” [source](https://www.reddit.com/r/codex/comments/1w7xfz3/while_everyone_brags_about_how_good_astra_is_rn/p7y8d5e/)

#### Other

- OpenAI Codex, 2026-09-29, r/codex (Reddit): “100% im a developer and even using gpt 6 sol (havent tried 6.1 yet) i dont trust code reviews by it” [source](https://www.reddit.com/r/codex/comments/1wto9sy/bug_hunt_bench_61_sol_max_44_656_vs_6_astra_max/pcw74tn/)

## Top requests

What users ask to add or change, most asked first. 128 user-weeks ask for something. Requests do not change the Feedback Score. Rule: A separate pass by a large language model reads every counted post and extracts what the user asks the agent or its vendor to add or change, with the criteria it maps to and a short normalised wording; it does not touch the labels or the Feedback Score. A large language model groups the wordings within each criterion (the first criterion the request maps to) into themes, and a second pass merges themes that ask for the same change under different criteria; a merged theme sits under the criterion most of its requests map to, and code counts it once. A theme counts distinct user-weeks that ask for it, per agent; across agents, one user-week per agent. Themes asked in fewer than 2 user-weeks, and requests that share no theme, are not shown. Examples: up to 3 posts per theme from different users, without slurs: whole posts of 60 to 450 characters with at least 8 words beyond handles and links, posts of at most 280 characters first, then the newest.

| Rank | Request | User-weeks | Posts | Agents (user-weeks) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Cross-model independent code review | 12 | 12 | Claude Code 5, OpenAI Codex 2, Cursor 2, Devin 2, GitHub Copilot 1 |
| 2 | Code review on individual Pro and Max plans | 8 | 8 | Claude Code 8 |
| 3 | Published precision and recall metrics for review | 8 | 8 | Claude Code 5, Cursor 1, Devin 1, Factory 1 |
| 4 | Richer evaluation harness and metrics | 8 | 8 | Claude Code 4, Pi 2, Cursor 1, Factory 1 |
| 5 | Task-level traces alongside benchmark scores | 7 | 7 | Cursor 5, Devin 1, Zed 1 |
| 6 | Auto-review mode instead of manual approvals | 6 | 6 | Google Antigravity 3, OpenAI Codex 2, OpenCode 1 |
| 7 | Evidence-backed review findings with confidence | 6 | 6 | Cursor 3, Claude Code 1, OpenAI Codex 1, GitHub Copilot 1 |
| 8 | Agent self-review of its own output | 5 | 5 | OpenAI Codex 4, Claude Code 1 |
| 9 | Automated review-and-fix pass before human review | 5 | 5 | Amp 1, Google Antigravity 1, Claude Code 1, OpenAI Codex 1, Zed 1 |
| 10 | Less noisy, severity-sorted review findings | 5 | 5 | Claude Code 4, Cursor 1 |
| 11 | Review depth chosen by change risk | 5 | 5 | Claude Code 5 |
| 12 | Security standards in code review | 5 | 5 | Cursor 2, Claude Code 1, GitHub Copilot 1, Factory 1 |

### 1. Cross-model independent code review

- Claude Code, 2026-10-08, r/ClaudeCode (Reddit): “can you choose the model yourself, but then have another auto-review it? i do a lot with claude or codex and then have the other do a full review. would be good to automate that” [source](https://www.reddit.com/r/ClaudeCode/comments/1x0xu4p/just_launched_something_for_claude_code_users/peoqimk/)
- OpenAI Codex, 2026-09-29, r/codex (Reddit): “all the stuff claude makes, make sol and astra also review everything and create conversations between them to work out flaws. make it as automated as you can.” [source](https://www.reddit.com/r/codex/comments/1wt0da9/how_do_you_use_your_double_subscriptions/pcq456w/)
- Claude Code, 2026-09-26, @ClaudeDevs (X): “@claudedevs this solve a great issue. also devs need automotion for "review" and "fix" on a single sesstion with low token useges with deffrent models so we get some saving on letest and greatest models.” [source](https://twitter.com/1424656235018653697/status/2103672127430000746)

### 2. Code review on individual Pro and Max plans

- Claude Code, 2026-10-16, @ClaudeDevs (X): “@claudedevs small ask from a solo builder: pro plan folks are the ones who'd use deep review the most. no team to catch our mistakes, so the reviewer is the only second pair of eyes we get. would love to see it there 🙏” [source](https://twitter.com/107939584/status/2110989553108697517)
- Claude Code, 2026-10-16, @ClaudeDevs (X): “@claudedevs any plan for pro/max? solo devs ship plenty of bugs too” [source](https://twitter.com/496938572/status/2110976396663103776)
- Claude Code, 2026-10-16, @ClaudeDevs (X): “@claudedevs will the code review come to max too? /code-review is not good enough (e.g. compared to github copilot reviews) @bcherny” [source](https://twitter.com/196266927/status/2110948892682444837)

### 3. Published precision and recall metrics for review

- Devin, 2026-10-17, @cognition (X): “@jishnuteegala @devinai @cognition for the 36-reviewer experiment, unique confirmed bugs per dollar would be interesting; repeated findings could eat the budget without adding coverage.” [source](https://twitter.com/1672819239911055360/status/2111264038068097393)
- Claude Code, 2026-10-16, @ClaudeDevs (X): “@claudedevs per-repo review levels are the right control: a prototype repo wants quick, while payment code earns deep. the next step i'd want is reporting on what each level actually catches, so teams can tune on evidence instead of vibes.” [source](https://twitter.com/2102511420340314116/status/2111241000526250438)
- Claude Code, 2026-10-16, @ClaudeDevs (X): “@claudedevs how are we mere peasants meant to recommend it to our orgs if we don't know how good/bad it is” [source](https://twitter.com/524512294/status/2111002085512663183)

### 4. Richer evaluation harness and metrics

- Cursor, 2026-09-24, @cursor_ai (X): “@cursor_ai benchmark says 57.8%, production says “why is this diff 4,000 files”. ship the boring evals too.” [source](https://twitter.com/2315892500/status/2102966746462466395)
- Factory, 2026-09-23, @FactoryAI (X): “i really think @factoryai should have something similar to @cursor_ai cursorbench. i place great trust in factoryai and i'm willing to determine my workflow based on them. [link]” [source](https://twitter.com/1989809437213896704/status/2102743881058254945)
- Pi, 2026-09-17, r/PiCodingAgent (Reddit): “would be great to add evals to see if this actually improves the resulting code or not” [source](https://www.reddit.com/r/PiCodingAgent/comments/1wimfhg/piwarden_a_jevpowered_second_pair_of_eyes_for_pi/pad20ef/)

### 5. Task-level traces alongside benchmark scores

- Cursor, 2026-10-09, @cursor_ai (X): “@davidgomes @bot @cursor_ai does the feedback include a replay of the failing steps? that would make the manual triage much easier.” [source](https://twitter.com/1273937437408899072/status/2108680373819548099)
- Cursor, 2026-10-01, @cursor_ai (X): “@cursor_ai could you expose the cursorbench task traces alongside the score? a compact pass/fail diff per model would make the leaderboard much more useful for choosing a model for real repo work.” [source](https://twitter.com/2105782441504129024/status/2105790265495794080)
- Cursor, 2026-10-01, @cursor_ai (X): “@cursor_ai open weights in the editor are the useful part. a cursorbench crown is not extra coding capacity if i cannot replay the tasks max missed. i want the failing pr and the bench case on the same run, not a leaderboard that says the model looked.” [source](https://twitter.com/1667827210328363008/status/2105788794519859664)

### 6. Auto-review mode instead of manual approvals

- OpenAI Codex, 2026-10-06, r/codex (Reddit): “i wish i had the auto-review option. i wonder if i’ll get a reset because it isn’t enabled for me?” [source](https://www.reddit.com/r/codex/comments/1wzbhgy/please_tell_me_this_isnt_actually_the_reason_were/peakoqn/)
- OpenAI Codex, 2026-10-06, r/codex (Reddit): “dots needs to have a less strict autoreview version. it keeps flagging everything, which makes it not as autonomous as i'd like :( also maybe a model selection for when it stops being free :'(” [source](https://www.reddit.com/r/codex/comments/1wyw7e4/day_21_tibo/pe6f9ad/)
- Google Antigravity, 2026-10-06, @antigravity (X): “@adhidesign @googledeepmind @antigravity pls implement auto review like codex/claude. too much allow allow allow allow in antigravity” [source](https://twitter.com/1750020668974837760/status/2107488349879754991)

### 7. Evidence-backed review findings with confidence

- Cursor, 2026-10-05, @cursor_ai (X): “@cursor_ai that closes the loop from detection to remediation, but the safety boundary is the handoff. a good default is to require a reproducible failing case and a canary check before a cloud agent’s fix can merge. otherwise noisy regressions can turn into noisy patches.” [source](https://twitter.com/1707553239057551360/status/2107075309787046015)
- Cursor, 2026-09-25, @cursor_ai (X): “@cursor_ai would be interesting to see how it behaves when the evidence is genuinely ambiguous, like a latency bump that's real but belongs to a different change. an agent that says inconclusive correctly might end up more trusted than one that always picks a suspect” [source](https://twitter.com/737610404264706048/status/2103336974816096525)
- Cursor, 2026-09-24, @cursor_ai (X): “@cursor_ai faster review only matters if the verdict is explainable. emit the finding, evidence, affected path, confidence, and suggested test as a machine-readable artifact that the merge gate can verify.” [source](https://twitter.com/2099871292480421888/status/2103138311120224264)

### 8. Agent self-review of its own output

- OpenAI Codex, 2026-09-29, r/codex (Reddit): “this is chat gpt auditing codex work. i find that codex auditing its own work doesn’t work well” [source](https://www.reddit.com/r/codex/comments/1wsxjtm/how_often_does_this_happen_to_you_happens_every/pcpts9h/)
- OpenAI Codex, 2026-09-26, r/codex (Reddit): “astra should review the code that subagents created. otherwise there is a spaghetti code.” [source](https://www.reddit.com/r/codex/comments/1wql2gl/is_agent_routing_still_meta/pc6xqg1/)
- OpenAI Codex, 2026-10-18, X search: OpenAI Codex, Codex CLI, Codex app (X): “yeah, codex app is vibeslopped to the point where i think a rewrite would be better because there are a bazillion features that nobody uses in the current build and openai should start reviewing the code the agents write i really think reviewing would be net + use of time rather than debugging after prod and prompting agents to fix” [source](https://twitter.com/1733163487348817921/status/2111895574954061874)

### 9. Automated review-and-fix pass before human review

- OpenAI Codex, 2026-09-18, X search: OpenAI Codex, Codex CLI, Codex app (X): “@thsottiaux when i was delegated to the luna reserve usage, the sandbox does not allow git operations, making it super tough to use. and also would love to see "autofix ci & comments" option in the @chatgpt codex app. that would really be a claude code killer” [source](https://twitter.com/1027581358217080833/status/2100890296964026622)
- Claude Code, 2026-09-08, @ClaudeDevs (X): “@fipetru @claudeai @claudedevs @anthropicai @bcherny @dickson_tsai @amorriscode @trq212 same gap i hit. cloud agents that open the pr still need a human if there is no review loop. a harness with allow lists plus eval checks before the pr step is what makes it zero babysitting.” [source](https://twitter.com/2009223361969442816/status/2097118084502782456)
- Google Antigravity, 2026-09-04, @antigravity (X): “@antigravity "feature wishlist for the windows desktop app: traditional chinese ui automated review system please make it happen! 🚀"” [source](https://twitter.com/2075857384778641408/status/2095827918333304998)

### 10. Less noisy, severity-sorted review findings

- Claude Code, 2026-10-16, @ClaudeDevs (X): “@pwguler @claudedevs i’d want that split by severity. ten extra style findings and one missed billing bug tell very different stories, even if the total is higher.” [source](https://twitter.com/4922038422/status/2111029184755810687)
- Claude Code, 2026-10-16, @ClaudeDevs (X): “@claudedevs honestly just want it to flag less stuff. the quick mode might be the one i actually use” [source](https://twitter.com/1207177254230319104/status/2110923125596840009)
- Claude Code, 2026-09-05, r/ClaudeCode (Reddit): “i find this very frustrating for pr reviews, i've asked fable to review prs a few times and no matter how bullet proof the code is it'll still pick up on the most obscure inconsequential nitpicky "bugs" possible, it almost never just gives a pr a green light” [source](https://www.reddit.com/r/ClaudeCode/comments/1w7vicj/fable_51_not_getting_shit_done/p828n21/)

### 11. Review depth chosen by change risk

- Claude Code, 2026-10-17, @ClaudeDevs (X): “@claudedevs can review depth vary by the change as well as the repo? a docs edit and an auth change need different scrutiny. actionable bugs caught per reviewer minute could help a team tune depth using its own pr history.” [source](https://twitter.com/1147079582073253888/status/2111443124572893502)
- Claude Code, 2026-10-16, @ClaudeDevs (X): “@claudedevs per-repo quick/standard/deep levels is the right control. can admins route deep reviews automatically to prs that touch sensitive paths, or is it one level per repo?” [source](https://twitter.com/2104754944545116160/status/2110978016746639770)
- Claude Code, 2026-10-15, @ClaudeDevs (X): “@claudedevs per repo is the wrong split honestly. a two-line auth change in a quick repo is way riskier than a 400-line refactor in a deep one. the tier should follow the diff, not the repo it landed in.” [source](https://twitter.com/2031308285794729984/status/2110874066244530536)

### 12. Security standards in code review

- Cursor, 2026-09-24, @cursor_ai (X): “@cursor_ai faster review is useful, but latency is the easy metric; the dangerous misses are secrets in generated diffs and tenant boundaries that only fail under a real permission set. i’d gate merge on explicit auth-path coverage, not just a green scan.” [source](https://twitter.com/2053606955571105792/status/2103105910294077545)
- Factory, 2026-09-01, @FactoryAI (X): “@chahvivi @enoreyes @factoryai speed is great until the review loop becomes the bottleneck. the useful version of low-friction security feedback is one that catches the secret and tells the builder what to fix next.” [source](https://twitter.com/1671319169793654785/status/2094668248843444733)
- Claude Code, 2026-10-18, @ClaudeDevs (X): “@claudedevs i really like to use claude engineer and security to audit code from time to time. with each model improvements come. i'd like to think that @claudedevs has an active subscription to recursively update based on cves and should notify devs on changes or even proactively patch” [source](https://twitter.com/1847061887198154753/status/2111626434682712342)

## Every agent

| Agent | Overall rank | Reading | Customer love | 95% interval | n | Praise | Complaint |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [OpenAI Codex](https://feedbackbench.com/coding-agents/agents/codex.md) | 10 | 1st of 4 | 0.585 | 0.543–0.621 | 371 | 310 | 61 |
| [OpenCode](https://feedbackbench.com/coding-agents/agents/opencode.md) | 3 | 2nd of 4 | 0.503 | 0.483–0.522 | 31 | 25 | 6 |
| [Cursor](https://feedbackbench.com/coding-agents/agents/cursor.md) | 7 | 3rd of 4 | 0.501 | 0.474–0.524 | 44 | 35 | 9 |
| [Claude Code](https://feedbackbench.com/coding-agents/agents/claude-code.md) | 1 | 4th of 4 | 0.441 | 0.394–0.490 | 402 | 292 | 110 |
| [GitHub Copilot](https://feedbackbench.com/coding-agents/agents/copilot.md) | 9 | Too few posts | – | – | 27 | 17 | 10 |
| [Google Antigravity](https://feedbackbench.com/coding-agents/agents/antigravity.md) | 14 | Too few posts | – | – | 26 | 12 | 14 |
| [Devin](https://feedbackbench.com/coding-agents/agents/devin.md) | 2 | Too few posts | – | – | 24 | 20 | 4 |
| [Pi](https://feedbackbench.com/coding-agents/agents/pi.md) | 4 | Too few posts | – | – | 11 | 10 | 1 |
| [Amp](https://feedbackbench.com/coding-agents/agents/amp.md) | 5 | Too few posts | – | – | 5 | 4 | 1 |
| [Factory](https://feedbackbench.com/coding-agents/agents/factory.md) | 6 | Too few posts | – | – | 5 | 4 | 1 |
| [Grok Build](https://feedbackbench.com/coding-agents/agents/grok-build.md) | 16 | Too few posts | – | – | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| [Zed](https://feedbackbench.com/coding-agents/agents/zed.md) | 8 | Too few posts | – | – | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| [Cline](https://feedbackbench.com/coding-agents/agents/cline.md) | 11 | Too few posts | – | – | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| [Kiro](https://feedbackbench.com/coding-agents/agents/kiro.md) | 13 | Too few posts | – | – | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| [Augment Code](https://feedbackbench.com/coding-agents/agents/augment.md) | 17 | Too few posts | – | – | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| [Conductor](https://feedbackbench.com/coding-agents/agents/conductor.md) | 12 | Too few posts | – | – | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| [Warp](https://feedbackbench.com/coding-agents/agents/warp.md) | 15 | Too few posts | – | – | 0 | 0 | 0 |

## Posts

Receipts rule: Up to 5 praise and 5 complaint posts per area and 3 per criterion. Each is a whole post of 60 to 450 characters (700 for areas) with at least 8 words beyond handles and links, that judges the criterion, whose labels are all praise or all complaint, and that contains no slur. Posts that touch the fewest criteria come first, then posts of at most 280 characters, then the newest. A second large language model reads the first 3 candidates per slot and keeps a post only if it clearly praises, or clearly complains about, the agent on that criterion. Links and personal details removed by the source show as marks such as [link].

### OpenAI Codex

- Praise, 2026-10-17, r/codex (Reddit): “keep a $100 codex sub and a $200 claude sub. codex is still better for reviewing and finding edge cases.” [source](https://www.reddit.com/r/codex/comments/1x86280/advice_needed_for_new_workflow/ph9yelz/)
- Praise, 2026-10-14, r/codex (Reddit): “keep a plus account and use it for reviewing claud products with astra. best of both worlds . codex astra is still very good in this.” [source](https://www.reddit.com/r/codex/comments/1x5dd8g/comment/pgn52vj/)
- Praise, 2026-10-13, r/codex (Reddit): “i was also using codex this whole year until opus 5.5 but now i still use astra and sol 6.1 but only reviwers and researchers - they are quite good at it better than claude and opus 5.5 is stiill my main goto model” [source](https://www.reddit.com/r/codex/comments/1x4kfy9/things_have_really_changed_for_me/pgegj32/)
- Complaint, 2026-10-03, r/codex (Reddit): “i only use codex to get a second opinion on pr reviews but the last month or so it is no longer finding unique issues.” [source](https://www.reddit.com/r/codex/comments/1ww9cf7/holy_usage_increase_after_latest_reset/pdm6xe9/)
- Complaint, 2026-09-29, r/codex (Reddit): “this is chat gpt auditing codex work. i find that codex auditing its own work doesn’t work well” [source](https://www.reddit.com/r/codex/comments/1wsxjtm/how_often_does_this_happen_to_you_happens_every/pcpts9h/)
- Complaint, 2026-09-29, r/codex (Reddit): “100% im a developer and even using gpt 6 sol (havent tried 6.1 yet) i dont trust code reviews by it” [source](https://www.reddit.com/r/codex/comments/1wto9sy/bug_hunt_bench_61_sol_max_44_656_vs_6_astra_max/pcw74tn/)

### OpenCode

- Praise, 2026-10-10, r/opencodeCLI (Reddit): “the automated code review at the end of each turn is surprisingly good. it caught a couple of minor logic bugs in my app building earlier.” [source](https://www.reddit.com/r/opencodeCLI/comments/1vbdp1g/anyone_using_freebuff/pf0tzcw/)
- Praise, 2026-10-08, r/opencodeCLI (Reddit): “it’s a little different for me (+ve). i’ve worked with claude for years. i gave you my project for a deep analysis and asked what was wrong, and your review of the entire project kinda really surprised me.” [source](https://www.reddit.com/r/opencodeCLI/comments/1x0czi7/nemotron_3_ultra_in_opencode_for_free_via_nvidias/peod296/)
- Praise, 2026-09-22, r/opencode (Reddit): “i am using it to review ds 4.1 flash code and the results are quite good as a reviewer.” [source](https://www.reddit.com/r/opencode/comments/1wn191t/mimo_26_flash_is_a_beast_and_seems_to_use_very/pbbmn1v/)
- Complaint, 2026-10-02, r/opencode (Reddit): “agreed. everytime i have it code-review it does a poor job or finds false positives that any other 1m token model refutes” [source](https://www.reddit.com/r/opencode/comments/1wvyg3k/ling31flash_is_now_free_on_opencode/pdgc515/)
- Complaint, 2026-09-29, r/opencode (Reddit): “it's really bad a code reviews. always finding things and then being incorrect. or finding false positives” [source](https://www.reddit.com/r/opencode/comments/1wqi4a8/my_honest_opinion_about_spacebunny/pcst4iq/)
- Complaint, 2026-09-28, r/opencode (Reddit): “not a good model for coding review. it's too happy to "approve" everything.” [source](https://www.reddit.com/r/opencode/comments/1wp4kmi/m31_is_spacebunny/pck8qr0/)

### Cursor

- Praise, 2026-10-12, @cursor_ai (X): “@aditya_t007 i haven't tried @coderabbitai (i should) but i have a few workflows setup on my cursor to do exactly that. also @cursor_ai bugbot is pretty solid product.” [source](https://twitter.com/1309409339824840704/status/2109597641076343116)
- Praise, 2026-10-06, r/cursor (Reddit): “i can’t speak for your situation. you can tweak the yaml file to your specs and requirements. you are only as good as your config files :). but really, it’s been solid on following our coding standards and catching bad prs.” [source](https://www.reddit.com/r/cursor/comments/1wyp0kb/your_agents_write_prs_faster_than_anyone_can/pe4nvjb/)
- Praise, 2026-09-24, @cursor_ai (X): “@vibecoderofek @cursor_ai too early for a clean number. i just switched it on. the bigger win so far is noise: no more fresh flags on code that already passed review. i'll share the numbers once i have a full week to compare” [source](https://twitter.com/2201379657/status/2103054480199541159)
- Complaint, 2026-09-22, @cursor_ai (X): “@kentcdodds @cursor_ai @devinai @coderabbitai bugbot and coderabbit review the diff. they don't run the app. my worst bug, a chart line drawn twice, had a clean diff and passed static review; only a real browser check caught it, because the agent had already marked the task done.” [source](https://twitter.com/1748692144213405696/status/2102277944152576079)

### Claude Code

- Praise, 2026-10-14, r/ClaudeCode (Reddit): “i think it does not make sense. just ask claude to use subagent to review its own code, it’s usually good enough.” [source](https://www.reddit.com/r/ClaudeCode/comments/1x5yry5/never_gonna_move_out_from_claude_code_again_so_i/pgqu8tw/)
- Praise, 2026-10-11, r/ClaudeCode (Reddit): “/advisor and set to fable, often catches problems that opus and sonnet miss.” [source](https://www.reddit.com/r/ClaudeCode/comments/1x3akv0/is_big_model_smell_still_a_thing_or_have_yall/pfblbdm/)
- Complaint, 2026-10-18, @ClaudeDevs (X): “@jinjingliang @claudedevs claude verifying its own work doesn't even count in my book. adversarial reviews is the way to go.” [source](https://twitter.com/1692673890273710080/status/2111686842995048690)
- Complaint, 2026-10-17, r/ClaudeCode (Reddit): “default code-review is a nitpicky mofo.. i had to tell it to chill with the nits because it created like 20 of them per pr and this one time i created a feedback loop between a fix agent and code-review, the pr ended up eith 150 comments and the most bloated code there is” [source](https://www.reddit.com/r/ClaudeCode/comments/1x80fas/how_do_you_actually_review_claude_codes_diffs/ph8ziir/)
- Complaint, 2026-10-16, @ClaudeDevs (X): “@claudedevs will the code review come to max too? /code-review is not good enough (e.g. compared to github copilot reviews) @bcherny” [source](https://twitter.com/196266927/status/2110948892682444837)

### GitHub Copilot

- Praise, 2026-10-10, r/cscareerquestions (Reddit): “yeah as part of my workflow i have an automatic architecture review. we have code rabbit setup and i’ll kick off a copilot review. that catches pretty much all the small issues and the rest is just a design review” [source](https://www.reddit.com/r/cscareerquestions/comments/1x2kssr/i_dont_write_any_code_by_hand_since_month_why_my/pf393zo/)
- Praise, 2026-10-08, r/GithubCopilot (Reddit): “i still use my legacy github copilot plan for copilot code reviews. i find it very good at finding subtle bugs in even the code written by the better models. at our workplace, the code review is probably the most useful feature.” [source](https://www.reddit.com/r/GithubCopilot/comments/1wvuh3x/should_i_keep_my_github_copilot_pro_plan/pejg67i/)
- Praise, 2026-09-06, r/GithubCopilot (Reddit): “the actual copilot review bot you can add to the prs directly is quite good. i’m fairly impressed with what it finds with minimal adjustment. it’s often reviewing code that opus 4.8 wrote with gpt 5 terra in advisory position during development & planning.” [source](https://www.reddit.com/r/GithubCopilot/comments/1w8zk78/how_good_is_copilot_for_code_review/p87h92f/)
- Complaint, 2026-09-04, r/cscareerquestions (Reddit): “lgtm. but can you please look at the 100 issues copilot reports? thanks.” [source](https://www.reddit.com/r/cscareerquestions/comments/1w6sz0g/rant_how_do_you_deal_with_ai_slop_from_more/p7uamfp/)
- Complaint, 2026-09-03, r/ClaudeCode (Reddit): “i just use the codex plugin cc. i added a rule in `claude .md` "run a codex review after creating a pr." if the chat history gets too long, it sometimes forgets the rule, but usually it runs automatically. i tried using github copilot auto-reviews before, but the quality wasn't good, so i stopped.” [source](https://www.reddit.com/r/ClaudeCode/comments/1w5wr7f/besides_claude_code_how_are_you_leveraging/p7j8tiy/)
- Complaint, 2026-10-15, @GitHubCopilot (X): “why does @githubcopilot cost $0.05 to $1.00 to review a pr resulting in 'needs a closer look' outcome? [link]” [source](https://twitter.com/1951799842520670208/status/2110871452509753395)

### Google Antigravity

- Praise, 2026-10-16, @antigravity (X): “@antigravity @google @sundarpichai no fu**ing way... fable 5.1 on high has admitted that “argon's review is largely valid. i've reviewed the points raised against the code and updated the document.” argon had to improve on fable's plan.” [source](https://twitter.com/1721590682953859072/status/2111060435613225076)
- Praise, 2026-09-29, r/google_antigravity (Reddit): “i did a code review, gemini 3.8 flash found 10-12 issues and also highlighted syntax error in one python file. while gpt 5.6 sol, cried with 2-3 random suggestions” [source](https://www.reddit.com/r/google_antigravity/comments/1ws8p4o/can_someone_explain_this_to_me_please/pcub3no/)
- Complaint, 2026-09-18, r/google_antigravity (Reddit): “i was also feeling this. my 1st usecase for the antigravity is to review my code, but somehow it became giving more pointless and shorter reviews recently, i mean like this week. i don't know there's a secret intelligence limit set related to recent performance issues or slowdown ai development meme.” [source](https://www.reddit.com/r/google_antigravity/comments/1wjlepn/is_it_me_or_the_38_flash_is_slow_and_stupid_lately/pakdvj0/)

### Devin

- Praise, 2026-10-15, @DevinAI (X): “the amount of dead code @devinai has caught for me is insane it has a feature where it auto-reviews merges to main for bugs or dead code and i've gotten at least 10+ of these dead code messages i just reply "yes" and the pr's ready for me to merge in a few min later [link]” [source](https://twitter.com/1762175022527877120/status/2110525817390498195)
- Praise, 2026-10-09, @DevinAI (X): “@poteto @sahilsaitn @devinai has a really good code review tool, arguably one of the best” [source](https://twitter.com/2762687112/status/2108449522049540408)
- Praise, 2026-10-06, @DevinAI (X): “really nice feature that @devinai has: when you merge stuff, it messages you on slack if it finds an issue or dead code for example super nice to get a second set of eyes after every merge” [source](https://twitter.com/1762175022527877120/status/2107399715424010255)
- Complaint, 2026-10-05, @cognition (X): “@cognition cool. hope this improves the pr reviews. they've gotten very prone to flagging non-issues the last few days.” [source](https://twitter.com/9648292/status/2107221862077915182)

### Pi

- Praise, 2026-09-22, r/PiCodingAgent (Reddit): “switched my code-review flow from using lang-graph to using pi through the sdk. using astra from my codex sub. worked like a charm, and the review quality is even better. how do i add pi extensions into here? i would like to add subagents/goal functionality” [source](https://www.reddit.com/r/PiCodingAgent/comments/1wm2g7w/piagentpythonsdk_use_your_installed_pi_coding/pbbv0b3/)
- Praise, 2026-10-04, @pidotdev (X): “codex never caught these errors, but @pidotdev has! part of my workflow has always been to conduct a review with a team of agents, but it turns out there were configuration errors or things like that that codex/claude code never found. i had @pidotdev with @deepseek_ai flash v4.1 review the prs and it has found things in each pr that neither of the two did before. if you want to learn how to do it, i shared it in this video: [link]” [source](https://twitter.com/87080996/status/2106856314374623730)

### Amp

- Praise, 2026-09-18, @AmpCode (X): “@adamwathan wrote an @ampcode plugin that checks if an llm’s code output follows the spec i give it. it checks against specific verification criteria and claims. it’s already caught some stuff for me” [source](https://twitter.com/33135576/status/2101006859314561178)

### Factory

- Praise, 2026-10-14, @FactoryAI (X): “today, i implemented @factoryai droid review to run after every submitted pr, using gpt-6 luna max. it found 4 issues (i used opus 5.5 for the spec and glm 5.3 flash as the worker). it is definitely worth conducting reviews using different code models. if the validation is performed by the person who wrote the code, you are unlikely to encounter any points of disagreement.” [source](https://twitter.com/23220904/status/2110363877317701855)

### Zed

- Praise, 2026-10-12, @zeddotdev (X): “delta by @zeddotdev is some great stuff. enjoying working with it, especially for working on plans and reviewing code.” [source](https://twitter.com/928201772941889537/status/2109654713687744719)