Quality
Defect recall, precision, clean-review restraint, severity judgment, and consistency across repeated attempts.
Publication pipeline active · no official comparison yet
Code review claims
should survive review.
A reproducible benchmark for the quality, accuracy, speed, and cost of automated code review—measured in that order.
- 00
- immutable records
- 00
- official records
- 00
- published configurations
- 00
- tracks represented
What gets measured
Useful findings, not comment volume.
A reviewer earns credit for identifying an evidence-backed defect once. Rephrasing it, guessing loudly, or padding the review does not help.
Accuracy
One-to-one matching, proof-backed gold findings, human adjudication, and visible uncertainty for incomplete labels.
Speed
Latency is reported after review quality, with failures and budget exhaustion kept separate from successful reviews.
Affordability
Observed token and cost data where available. Unknown cost is null—never quietly treated as free.
Two honest tracks
Separate the model from the product.
A
Fixed harness / model
Hold prompt, tools, budgets, context, scorer, and task release still. Change the model or provider endpoint.
B
End-to-end product
Measure the whole review system: its model, prompt, tools, parsing, and orchestration. OpenRouter Review Bot and Grok Code Review Bot are first.
The standard
Every public number carries its receipts.
- Exact source SHAsProducts, runner, tasks, and scorer
- Immutable releasesCorrections create history; they do not rewrite it
- Public + held-outOpen calibration and contamination-resistant evaluation
- Operational failuresRefusals, malformed output, timeouts, and provider errors stay visible
Current state
The plumbing is public.
The comparison waits for evidence.
The schemas, calibration fixtures, scorer, and methodology are available now. Primary comparisons begin only after the real-PR corpus and adjudication gates are ready.