I agree that none perform _super_ well.

I would argue they go far beyond linters now, which was perhaps not true even nine months ago.

To the degree you consider this to be evidence, in the last 7 days, the authors of a PR has replied to a Greptile comment with "great catch", "good catch", etc. 9,078 times.

I fully agree. Claude’s review comments have been 50% useful, which is great. For comparison I have almost never found a useful TeamScale comment (classic static analyzer). Even more important, half of Claude’s good finds are orthogonal to those found by other human reviewers on our team. I.e. it points out things human reviewers miss consistently and v.v.

> To the degree you consider this to be evidence, in the last 7 days, the authors of a PR has replied to a Greptile comment with "great catch", "good catch", etc. 9,078 times.

do you have a bot to do this too?

I like number of "great catches" as a measure of AI code review effectiveness

People more often say that to save face by implying the issue you identified would be reasonable for the author to miss because it's subtle or tricky or whatever. It's often a proxy for embarrassment

I mean how far Rusts own clippy lint went before any LLMs was actually insane.

Clippy + Rusts type system would basically ensure my software was working as close as possible to my spec before the first run. LLMs have greatly reduced the bar for bringing clippy quality linting to every language but at the cost of determinism.

That sounds more like confirmation that greptile is being included in a lot agentic coding loops than anything

Not trying to sidetrack, but a figure like that is data, not evidence. At the very minimum you need context which allows for interpretation; 9,078 positive author comments would be less impressive if Greptile made 1,000,000 comments in that time period, for example.