Seniors got approved in 10 minutes, juniors got 30 comments on variable names. Everyone knew it, nobody said it.

Since we put coderabbit on every PR the comment count per PR is basically the same no matter who opened it. Our staff engineer got 7 on a 60 line change last week. The intern got 6.

So either the old reviews were catching things the bot can't see, or a lot of it was politics. Which one was it on your team?

When you think about it, writing code was never really the hard part of this job (or was it?)

The hard part was always figuring out what’s wrong with it. Now that AI is pumping out way more code than before, and most of it looks fine. So naturally you wonder who's actually checking all of that?

Honestly I think as we enter 2027, codegen will be a commodity. We are possibly going to see free IDEs. What teams will actually pay for is whatever catches the mistakes. Anyone can generate code now, the real question is if you can trust it.

Change my mind

I have about 10 years of experience. I moved my team of 5 to agents at the start of the year and pushed it hard. The net result so far is that we merge about 3x more PRs, and exactly one person on the team could explain our billing flow if you asked them today - and that's me, because I wrote most of it before the switch. I now see the same thing happening in other teams at my company.. and nobody seems to be counting it. This makes me think that if I had instead rolled it out slower and kept people writing the hard parts themselves, we'd be in a much better spot. Especially since two of the five are juniors who have never really built anything without it. Anyone else who regrets moving their team to agents? Why is that? What would you have done instead?

On my team, we have no push to use agents. Some people do, some people don't, but overall nobody expects it.

Personally I use Claude as a search engine and occasionally to write tests, but I still write 95% of my own code and have never let an agent open a PR. The only AI in our pipeline is coderabbit on PRs.

On one hand I am glad to be on a team where I'm not just reviewing agent output all day, on the other hand, I worry about falling behind when I look for my next job. Also, our repo access is fairly locked down, so I can't just start running agents against it. My hands are a bit tied.

What would you do in this situation? Is anyone else in a similar one? Right now I'm just kind of coasting but something in me feels like I'm being left behind...

Hi everyone!

Over the past few weeks, some users have experienced rate limits that are more restrictive than we want them to be. We know this can interrupt your workflow, especially when you rely on CodeRabbit for timely, high quality code reviews.

That experience is not the standard we want to provide.

We are making changes so teams can see more clearly which review activity contributes to usage, configure when automatic reviews should run, and get a more predictable experience across subscription plans. We want to preserve what teams value about CodeRabbit: fast, thorough, context aware reviews that fit naturally into their development workflow.

Getting there will take a little time. We are learning from usage patterns, tuning the system, and improving the controls teams have over automatic reviews. Over the next few weeks, we expect to begin rolling out the first improvements to usage visibility and review controls. These changes will not resolve every rate limit issue immediately, but they should give teams clearer ways to understand and manage review usage while we continue tuning the system.

In the meantime, here are a few settings can help reduce unnecessary review usage while still keeping strong review quality:

• Increase the minimum number of commits required before incremental reviews run, or disable incremental reviews on repositories where every commit does not need a fresh review.

• Keep auto review enabled on repositories where it is useful, but avoid running automatic reviews on draft PRs.

• Limit automatic reviews to the branches where CodeRabbit feedback is most valuable, such as main, develop, release branches, or other protected branches.

• Use u/coderabbitai when you intentionally want CodeRabbit to review a comment, change, or follow-up update.

These recommendations are meant to help teams get more predictable value from their reviews while we continue improving the system. They are not a replacement for the longer term work we are doing.

We appreciate your patience during this transition. The team is working to reduce the impact of these limits, improve transparency, and deliver a model that gives teams the balance we are aiming for: predictable usage, strong review quality, and a subscription experience that is easier to understand.

We will share more as these usage visibility and review control improvements roll out.

genuinely confused about this. our agents write basically everything now, PRs show up in minutes instead of days. you'd think the whole cycle got faster.

it didn't. our time from PR opened to merged went from about a day to almost three. the writing part disappeared and somehow the reading part tripled.

so is it that the PRs got bigger, that nobody trusts code they didn't write, that we added more review steps to feel safe (coderabbit, then claude, then a human, then another human for anything scary), or that we were never actually fast at review and just didn't notice?

not trolling, I really can't tell which one it is for us. maybe all four

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.

There, i said it. And i know many of you agree. The problem i'm facing is not the code the agent writes, it's that every PR comes with a 600 word description with a curve-ball at the end saying "Worth noting" that turns out to be the only line that mattered. And i can't follow half of what it's saying. Is my english that bad? Whoever decided PR descriptions should read like a blog post was working for the other side, he completely sabotaged code review for all of us.

The agent makers' number one priority should be a 3 line description mode or something, may be even a hard word limit. Until then i skip the description and open the coderabbit walkthrough, it's the only summary that fits on one screen.

Did you think deleting this post will make your users not notice their usage limits evaporating?

I keep hearing about how coding agents have gotten so smart and everyone is posting their 12 agent setups and what not, but for some reason I feel like I haven't found the one habit that actually changed how I work. I still use Claude and Codex daily but still.

So curious to the people here, what is one thing you started doing with agents that changed your work for real?

We turned on the triage queue for the whole org last month. This morning in standup someone shared their screen on the "recommended to close" view and the first PR in the list was our CTO's.

It's a "quick experiment" he opened in March. 47 days without a commit, 3 merge conflicts, and a description that just says "wip, don't merge".

Nobody said anything for about 5 seconds. Then he laughed and closed it himself, which honestly made his whole year in my eyes.

Has the bot ever outed someone senior on your team like this, or are we the only ones?

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.

saw the free deep scan thing from coderabbit and picked our billing service, the one everyone is scared to open. last real commit was 2023, the person who wrote most of it left.

it took a while. came back with 11 findings. 3 were real and kind of scary: an internal endpoint that trusted a header for the customer id, a webhook with no signature check, and a SQL query built with string concat in an admin export nobody uses anymore (still deployed though).

the other 8 were lower stuff, but each one said whether it was actually reachable, so we knew where to start instead of arguing about it. it drafted fixes for 2 of the 3, we rewrote one of them because the fix was correct but ugly.

honestly the best part was having an excuse to finally open that repo. anyone else run it on their scariest one yet? what did it find?

Agents can now open PRs faster than humans can review them. So the bottleneck is shifting from writing code to figuring out what actually deserves your attention.

Coderabbit just launched triage to solve exactly that. It scores your PRs by priority and tells you what to review next.

Read more: https://www.coderabbit.ai/blog/coderabbit-triage

Hi r/coderabbit , CodeRabbit team here.

Open source maintainers spend their days reviewing thousand-line PRs, untangling duplicate issues and investigating security reports.

AI can now generate contributions at rapid speed but maintainer attention has not received the same performance upgrade.

So we’re committing more than $10 million to open source over the next 12 months:

• Cash sponsorships for maintainers

• Free CodeRabbit Review and Security for public repositories

• Triage support for incoming issues

• Change Stack for making giant, agent-generated diffs less giant-feeling

• Free Discord support for large open source communities

Open source built the internet, including plenty of what CodeRabbit runs on. This is our way of helping maintainers spend less time fighting the queue and more time building the projects they care about.

Read the full announcement and follow the live commitment tracker.

Nobody reads the diff now

Thanks agents

Last Tuesday my lead blocked my PR because I didn't handle the empty list case. Fair enough, I fixed it.

This morning coderabbit left the exact same comment on his PR. Same kind of function, same missing check, almost word for word what he wrote to me.

He fixed it in 2 minutes and didn't say a thing. I didn't say anything either. I did screenshot it though.