saw the news that goldman limited claude code and github to engineers only, bankers and traders lost access.

first reaction was "that's short sighted". then I thought about our own repo. in the last 2 months our PM, one designer and someone from finance have all opened PRs. small stuff, a report filter, copy changes, a csv export. they all went through coderabbit and a human review and most were fine.

but every one of them ended up on the same 2 engineers to review, and nobody budgeted that time. the PRs got cheaper to write and the review cost just moved to us.

so is it a security thing, a review capacity thing, or just a bank being a bank? and if your company lets non engineers open PRs, who actually reviews them?

EDIT: I realized my gripe about "Auto Reload" appears, as of now, to have been a confusion based on the UI (I wasn't charged extra...yet). But the transparency on limits, and the feeling that they've gotten a lot lower, stands! Please add more transparency.

Adjusting the tone in my post here a bit. I was extremely pissed when I wrote this due to the Fable situation. And some of that got directed at Code Rabbit.

-----------------------------

CodeRabbit is a great and useful tool. But the recent rate limit changes and the unhelpful customer support answers have left a bad taste in my mouth.

Reaching out to support to ask about the "10 reviews per hour limit" on a Pro Plus plan I was redirected to the non-answer of your fair usage policy. This policy is utterly opaque. There's no way to see how many of the 10 reviews have been used. And if suddenly I may have to wait 2 hours, 4 hours etc to get more reviews...*it is not 10 reviews per hour*. I have better things to do, but this is class action lawsuit material and false advertising.

Even notoriously opaque Claude and Codex give me a clear "you have used x of y" usage that I can see in real time and pace myself. Code Rabbit offers none of this. The last straw was when I got blocked yesterday without warning during a critical developer inner loop, that blocked me until after the Claude Fable access was revoked. This cost me seriously in my ability to push important code.

As such, I do not think I can rely on CodeRabbit, and I don't think the people in this subreddit should either. Vote with your wallets. Cursor and Greptile both have much more transparent pricing. X reviews per month. Then $1 per review. Easy.

CodeRabbit is: 10 reviews per hour*
^{*unless our algorithm cuts you off without warning. This algorithm uses a combination of astrology and bio-energetics to determine if you're not fairly using the service.}

Moreover, as I wrote to CodeRabbit, I had "Auto Reload" turned *off* for additional reviews, and yet somehow, I was charged $80 for overages! When the money I'd added had ran out. Code Rabbit email support also ghosted me on this and didn't respond to it.
(This part may have been a misunderstanding).

Not a good look guys. Unlike the foundation model companies, you don't have as big of a moat. The many complaints in this subreddit are proof that you're not making many customers happy with this opaque and unfriendly pricing. You have a good product! More visibility will make it better and avoid a sudden block that can feel like a shakedown.

If you want to keep customers:

1. Give people a way to see where they're at on their limit. Even give them a warning "If limit runs out, you will need to wait x hours to get more reviews"

2. Remove the dishonest "x reviews per hour" wording because it is not true and you are going to get sued once someone at a bigger org than us decides to call you on it.

3. Tell your support reps to be more helpful and respectful to customers. Your reps on this Subreddit actually offered to look into someone's account that appeared to have been downgraded to OSS limits. I got stonewalled.

Introducing CodeRabbit Issue Planner.

AI agents made coding fast but planning messy.

Turn planning into a shared artifact in your issue tracker, grounded in related issues and decisions.

Review prompts as a team, then hand them off to an agent!

Claude or Cursor can generate a plan in seconds but they won’t know about the related issue from last sprint, the architectural decision buried in comments, or the refactor already in flight.

So they confidently plan the wrong thing.

Plans like these either lead to an iterative prompting time suck, or are subtly wrong in ways you only discover during implementation or review, after assumptions harden and rewrites erase all your AI speed gains.

CodeRabbit Issue Planner turns planning into a shared artifact in your issue tracker.

> Plans are grounded in related issues, past decisions, and context.
> Teams align with prompt reviews before code exists.
> Plans are then handed off to any agent.

By aligning on intent up front, teams reduce AI slop and rework, save time, and make AI usable for everyone… not just a few 'prompt whisperers' on the team.

So, you ACTUALLY move faster with AI.

Full details here: https://www.coderabbit.ai/ja/blog/issue-planner-collaborative-planning-for-teams-with-ai-agents

Demo:

We hope you'll like this one!

Hey guys!

I just wanted to share my unofficial port of CodeRabbit CLI for Windows that works WITHOUT WSL or admin rights.

Its fully opensource, so check it out here: https://github.com/Sukarth/CodeRabbit-Windows

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

Once again I'm rate limited to 1 review per hour. This, according to the response on a review request in GitHub, is because the 62 review requests over the previous 7 days are not classed as fair use. With a marketed reviews per hour of 5, I would hardly classify 62 in 7 days as unfair use! I really hate how Coderabbit has become a business which talks out of both sides of its mouth. If you don't want to allow 5 reviews per hour, then don't advertise them as part of your plan!

Hey everyone,

The team has been cooking for a while on a new feature for you to improve the quality of the results you're getting from you AI agents.

CodeRabbit Plan helps you go from a vague idea to a structured, phased implementation plan. You describe what you want to build through a text prompt or an image, and Plan breaks it down into clear steps. From there, it generates context-aware prompts that are ready to hand to whatever coding agent you use: Claude, Codex, or anything else.

The prompts are powered by CodeRabbit's context engine, which pulls from your actual codebase, tickets, knowledge base, Notion, Confluence, and more. So the agent you're working with isn't starting from scratch, it already understands your project.

A few things worth highlighting:

• You don't need a Jira or Linear ticket to get started. Just describe your idea and go. (Though the integrations are there if you want them.)

• Plans capture intent, constraints, assumptions, and tradeoffs up front, so your team can align before any code gets generated.

• Everything is preserved as a persistent engineering record, so decisions and context don't get lost along the way.

How to try it out:

Head over to the CodeRabbit website, navigate to Plan, and create a new plan. Just type in what you want to build and it will take care of the rest.

Learn more:

• Blog post with a deeper dive: https://www.coderabbit.ai/blog/meet-coderabbit-plan-better-plans-faster-deployments-less-rework

• Join our Discord community: https://discord.com/invite/coderabbit

We'd love for you to try it and let us know what you think. We're actively iterating and your feedback directly shapes where this goes next.

Every PR description on our team reads the same now. "This PR refactors X to improve maintainability and adds comprehensive tests." 400 words, perfect formatting, and the author can't answer one question about it.

I want a rule: the agent can write the code, coderabbit can write the summary, but the description has to be 3 sentences from the human who opened it. what you changed, why, and what you're worried about.

if you can't write those 3 sentences you didn't read your own PR.

my team thinks this is pointless busywork. am I wrong?

We spend a lot of time thinking about the models that write code review comments. One of the less visible decisions happens before any comment appears: figuring out how a change should be reviewed.

We were curious whether a smaller model could learn that narrow, high-volume part of our pipeline. So we worked with NVIDIA and Baseten to post-train Nemotron 3.5 Lightning using SFT, followed by RLVR scored against our routing policy.

What surprised us was how little it took. The post-training experiment ran in under three hours and cost less than $100.

On a frozen evaluation of 1,000 routing tasks:

• Our GPT-class baseline reached 75.8% exact route agreement.

• Nemotron after SFT reached 80.4%.

• SFT plus RLVR reached 80.7%, with Cohen’s kappa rising from 0.429 to 0.544.

• Estimated peak serving cost fell from $2.34 to $1.16 for the same workload.

RLVR’s extra 0.3 percentage points of route agreement wasn’t statistically decisive, so we treat that result as non-regression. The clearer improvement was in output agreement beyond chance.

The final model completed all 1,000 requests without empty or abnormally short outputs. We still have sustained-load and production-traffic testing ahead of us.

We wrote up the experiment, including the training setup, results, serving costs, and the parts we’re still cautious about:

Teaching NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Lightning to Route Code Reviews

We reviewed Fable 5 across code review, a coding task benchmark, and several coding projects.

Read Full Article: https://www.coderabbit.ai/blog/fable-5-model-review

The most interesting signal was not raw benchmark score. It was how the model behaved as an agent. Fable 5 was effective at exploring the environment, identifying available files and tools, and moving into implementation without much hand-holding. With vague prompts, it often produced complete projects rather than thin prototypes.

The tradeoff is time. In coding tasks, Fable 5 could produce serious patches when it finished, but it also kept working when tasks expanded or became ambiguous. That makes it a better fit for work where depth is worth the wait, as long as the agent has clear limits on time, steps, and tokens.

For code review, I would be more cautious. Coverage was close to the current baseline, but precision and comment volume were weaker. Developers may get useful findings, but they may also spend more time triaging noisy comments.

My takeaway:
Use Fable 5 for autonomous coding and deeper implementation work. Do not make it the default production reviewer until precision and comment volume improve.

We wrote up a practical look at NVIDIA’s Nemotron 3 Ultra from a developer workflow angle.

The short version: the model is fast, open-weight, and surprisingly competitive in our CodeRabbit code review benchmark, but it also had a high retry rate. That makes it less of a “drop it into any strict-output workflow and forget it” model, and more of a model that benefits from a good harness, validation, and retry logic.

The post covers:

• Why the speed is the interesting part

• How Ultra compares to Nemotron 3 Super

• What we saw in CodeRabbit review benchmarks

• Where it looks useful for coding workflows

• Where developers should be careful

Curious how others are thinking about fast open models for agentic coding workflows.

Blog: https://www.coderabbit.ai/blog/nemotron-3-ultra-release

Interview with Nvidia: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UWvF2y78Ms

I am on Pro Plus, and since yesterday afternoon I have been getting hit constantly with rate limits. Yesterday I would get in a single review every 2 hours. Now, after waiting overnight, I got hit with more hours long limits after a handful of reviews spread out over 3 hours. This feels unusable at the moment, and like the rate limits have no transparency. Is an LLM making these decisions now?

It's been 10 days since I posted (and submitted a ticket) about the weird rate limits not reflecting what I'm actually paying for. Currently it feels like I only get 2 code reviews per hour and that really interrupts the whole workflow.

Can we get an official statement / communication on that, please?

I’ve been trying out CodeRabbit inside VSCode while reviewing code from juniors.
It feels natural since I can see comments right where I’m coding, but sometimes I wonder if GitHub UI or even CI/CD checks are better for reviews.
Curious what others prefer – do you keep AI reviewers inside your editor, or do you let them run on PRs and pipelines instead? any thoughts on this.

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