allisonee

Ultimately, the author (the engineer writing the PR) should always fully own the impact and consequences of their code. This has always been true, but it’s become even more critical with AI-assisted coding and more junior engineers who primarily test only for functional correctness.

Just like AI now helps nearly everyone write code, it makes sense for AI to handle an initial pass at reviewing code too. However, there’s significant value in human reviewers providing an outside perspective—both to build shared understanding of the codebase and to catch higher-level issues.

TLDR; AI should do the first pass on reviews, but another engineer should also review the code for context and collaboration. Ultimately, though, the author still fully owns every line that gets merged.

Glad to hear the product resonates! Hope your team likes it, and please share any feedback as you try it out. If helpful, I can also start a direct slack channel between our teams, just reach out to [email protected] with your slack emails!

we're in the process of getting our soc2 approved, stay tuned!

thanks for the feedback and glad to hear that parts of our platform resonate. let me know if we can help onboard the team in the future if that makes it easier, it should be quick to switch as we also have our own cli. right now, our billing will be per author. our free trial is 2 weeks--but if you start it and don't trigger any/do any reviews we're happy to restart it later for you. just contact us at [email protected]!

on our roadmap! please reach out at [email protected] if you want to get notified on launch :)

glad to see this resonates - seems like many of us are experiencing the same challenges with AI codegen!

thanks for bringing this up! we're currently free (unlimited PRs) and will soon bill $20-$30/active user (has committed a PR) per month.

We'll try to make this clearer!

totally get where you're coming from--many big open source repos have also been using it for a while and have seen some FP but have generally felt that the quality overall was worth it. would love to continue having you try it out, but also understand that maintaining a FOSS project is a ton of work!

if you have specific feedback on the pr--feel free to email at [email protected] and i'll take a look personally and see if we can adjust anything for your repo.

nice idea on the fully AI-generated PRs! something in our roadmap is to better highlight PRs or chunks that were likely auto-gened. stay tuned !

thanks for bringing this up, and totally understand the concern. we are committed to security, and we never write/access your code without your action--the only reason that setting is necessary is so that you can merge/1-click commit suggestions from the AI directly from the code suggestions it's posted.

sorry to hear that it didn't catch all the issues! if you downvote/upvote or reply directly to the bot comment @mrge-io <feedback>, we can improve it for your team.

We take all these into consideration when improving our AI, and your direct reply will fine tune comments for your repository-only.

just to follow up--the fix for this is landing! thanks for surfacing

thanks for the feedback! Glad that our ai reviewer has been useful to your team!

appreciate the honest reaction! We'll think about this more, what we were trying to get at is that cursor is more about code writing, and we're tackling the review/collaboration side :) curious if anything else would have immediately stuck out to you more?

On the roadmap! If you're happy to share your email for an early link when we do support it, send to [email protected]