CodeRabbit · Qodo · Greptile
- This run Tests look thorough for the happy path.
- Last run Possible null on the error path.
- Run before that Consider extracting this helper.
Compare · CodeRabbit
Proof vs CodeRabbit
CodeRabbit comments on this pull request. Proof re-reads signed requirements on every pull request. A miss is an exit code, not a thread. Qodo and Greptile sit on this page.
proof auditNot a CodeRabbit alternative. Keep the reviewer. Proof does not leave a suggested patch on line 74.
01 · Answers
How Proof compares to CodeRabbit
The comparison, as a list. Click the instrument below for the same split.
- How does Proof compare to CodeRabbit? CodeRabbit is an AI reviewer of this diff. Proof is a CI gate on signed requirements for one component. A clean thread can still ship a broken shall.
- Is Proof a CodeRabbit alternative? No. Keep the reviewer. Proof does not comment on line 74, pull Jira, or rank style.
- What does CodeRabbit still win? Inline review UX, suggested diffs, speed in GitHub. Qodo and Greptile sit here, not on twin pages.
- What's a reliable way to gate AI pull requests on correctness? A non-zero exit on the requirement, not another comment. That is Proof.
02 · The distinction
An AI reviewer is still a model. Proof is not.
Even when a review tool tries to map your software, even when it tries to remember last time, it is still AI. Non-deterministic. A different answer on the next run.
That comment lives in their product. You do not own it. You cannot re-run it. You cannot hand it to an agent as a file in the repo. Next week the model has another opinion.
Proof is the opposite. Every claim needs evidence. No reproducer, no finding. The same inputs give the same result. What it writes down, you keep.
03 · Same pull request
Click through what each one actually sees.
The reviewer looks at this change. Proof looks at the corpus you already own.
Pull request
Add refunds
The ticket. The diff. The tests the agent wrote with the function. This is what an AI reviewer is handed.
- refund.go
- refund_test.go
- TICKET-1842
Proof
Not consulted. The signed requirements are still sitting in the repo.
WaitingCodeRabbit · Qodo · Greptile
Those comments live in their product. Run it again and they move. You do not own them.
Hidden knowledge baseYour corpus
- Requirement Refunds never exceed capture
- Reproducer One command. It fails until the fix lands.
- Blast radius Payment. Reporting.
- Done means The checks that must pass
Drawn for this page. Same shape as the two intakes on the homepage: what the work starts with. Qodo and Greptile sit with CodeRabbit.
04 · What you keep
The corpus is yours. Their knowledge base is not.
You keep the approved requirements, fix-ready issues, evidence corpus, agent access, change history, and gate in your own repository.
Intent recovered from the code. Hazard analysis. The hazards themselves. The tests, including MC/DC. Agents work against that graph: they write tests to cover it, they receive the requirement and the reproducer before they edit a line.
When Proof finds an issue it is not an AI comment. It is confirmed with a reproducer. Everything that runs stays yours.
- Approved requirements Intent recovered from the code, signed, in the repo.
- Hazard analysis What must not happen when a requirement fails.
- Tests and MC/DC Agents write coverage against the graph, not against last run's opinion.
- Findings Reproducer, blast radius, exact completion criteria. For engineers or coding agents.
05 · The honest loss
Proof does not replace CodeRabbit.
CodeRabbit still wins at reading this pull request and leaving a comment a person can act on, fast, in GitHub.
Keep the reviewer if you want that UX. Add Proof for the corpus you own, and for findings that do not change when you run them again.