I like that it provides quick feedback, which is essential in a fast-paced development environment.
The tool can be quite slow at times, which can hinder productivity when you're in a rush.
It helps in identifying some basic errors, but I still rely heavily on my team for comprehensive reviews.
I appreciate the tool's ability to quickly identify bugs and inefficiencies in my code. It saves a lot of time during the review process.
The suggestions can sometimes be generic and not tailored to the specific context of my project, which means I still need to review them thoroughly.
It helps streamline the code review process, reducing the back-and-forth with team members. This leads to faster deployments and higher code quality overall.
The concept of automating code reviews is excellent, and I was excited to try it.
It often misses critical bugs and suggests improvements that don't actually enhance the code quality.
Unfortunately, it hasn't solved any significant problems for us; it seems more like a fancy tool without real utility.
I like the effort that goes into making the tool user-friendly, and the onboarding process is smooth.
The performance can lag during peak hours, which is frustrating when you need quick feedback.
It helps identify some basic issues in my code, but I find it doesn't replace the need for a human reviewer.
I love how it integrates with GitHub seamlessly. It makes adding code reviews a breeze.
Sometimes the AI seems to overlook certain nuances in the code, which can lead to missed issues.
It significantly cuts down on the manual effort needed for peer reviews, allowing me to focus on more complex coding tasks.
The idea of automating code reviews is appealing, and it has potential.
The accuracy of the reviews is inconsistent, and I've caught several critical issues it missed.
While it identifies some minor issues, it hasn't significantly improved our review process.
The AI-driven feedback is often insightful and has helped improve my coding practices over time.
It can be too strict with certain coding styles, which can be frustrating when I'm trying to innovate.
It helps in maintaining consistent code quality across the team, which is vital for collaborative projects.
The detailed feedback is incredibly helpful for learning and improving my coding skills.
I wish there were more customization options for the review criteria.
It assists in speeding up the review process, allowing for quicker turnaround times on projects.
The AI-driven insights are often spot on, and it's fantastic at identifying security vulnerabilities.
The initial setup took a bit longer than I anticipated, but it was worth it.
It simplifies the code review process, allowing my team to focus more on coding rather than reviewing, which boosts overall productivity.
The tool's ability to highlight potential security vulnerabilities is a game-changer for our projects.
At times, the interface can be a bit overwhelming with all the options available, especially for new users.
It reduces the amount of manual code checking we need to do, allowing us to deliver projects faster and with greater assurance of quality.
It's convenient to have an AI tool assist in the code review process, and the integration with GitHub is solid.
The pricing is a bit high for the number of reviews you get, especially for small teams or solo developers.
It helps catch some basic errors that I might overlook, but I often find myself double-checking the suggestions, which negates some of the time savings.
GPT Engineer App enables users to build and deploy custom web apps quickly and efficiently.
CodeSandbox, an AI assistant by CodeSandbox, boosts coding efficiency with features like code generation, bug detection, and security enhancements.
Sourcegraph Cody is an AI coding assistant that helps write, understand, and fix code across various languages.