AI code review backed by real test runs

AI writes your code.
Qodex catches what breaks.

Runs real API, UI and security tests on every pull request, and hands you actual bugs with the failing request and response.

Get started Book a demo

4.9 on G2
G2 Best Software 2026

The inspection line

You automated the factory.
The inspection line is still manual.

AI multiplied the pull requests. Review, QA and the test suite did not multiply with them.

45%

of AI-generated code carries an OWASP-class security flaw.

Veracode, GenAI Code Security Report, July 2025. 100+ models, 80 tasks. Flat across newer models.

43.2M
pull requests merged on GitHub every month, up 23% in a year.
GitHub Octoverse, Oct 2025
45%
of developers say debugging AI-generated code takes longer than writing it.
Stack Overflow Developer Survey 2025, 49K developers
+31%
more pull requests merge without any review under high AI adoption.
Faros AI Engineering Report 2026
~5x
longer pull request review time under high AI adoption.
Faros AI Engineering Report 2026

Throughput and instability rise together. Google’s DORA research, Sep 2025.

One agent runs review, testing, and security from the same scenarios.

harden tenant billing access#1473

Opendanielle-w wants to merge 6 commits into main from fix/tenant-billing-isolation+318-9414 files

ConversationCommits 6Checks 3Files changed 14

Qodexbotreviewed and requested changescommented just nowChanges requested

checkout-api/billing.tsline 84

-const billing = await db.billing.find(orgId)

+const billing = await db.billing.find({ orgId, callerOrgId })

Tenant isolation is broken here. An Org A admin can read another org’s billing. Scope the query to the caller’s org.

Qodexbotflagged a vulnerabilitycommented just now

CriticalBroken object-level authorization (BOLA)

GET /v1/orgs/{orgB}/billing returns 200 for an Org A admin (expected 403). Cross-tenant billing is exposed.

status 200, expected 403CVSS 8.6OWASP API1:2023

Qodexbotran the test suitecommented just now

1 of 41 scenarios failed

Scenario “Admin cannot access tenant billing across orgs” failed: GET /v1/orgs/{orgB}/billing returned 200 instead of 403.

1 failed40 passedrun_5f1c · 11.4s

Qodex / code reviewchanges requested

Qodex / security1 critical

Qodex / tests1 failed of 41

Merge pull requestReview required · merging is blocked

Security semantics are inverted on purpose: a pass means the attack was blocked, so the agent cannot make a failing test go green by relaxing the assertion.

How it works

Every pull request, tested before it merges.

One agent, six steps, and the last one feeds the first.

1
Change
A developer or a coding agent opens a pull request.
2
Context
Qodex reads the diff and the repository around it.
3
Execution
It runs the relevant API, UI and security checks against the preview.
4
Evidence
Every finding carries the failing request, response or screenshot.
5
Verdict
The pull request gets a clear merge recommendation.
6
Memory
Production incidents become regression scenarios, so the next change is tested against them.

Back to 1. The next pull request is tested against what production taught.

No model call on replay. The suite grows; the bill does not.

Why it is different

Diff-only review guesses.
Execution-backed review knows.

A reviewer that only reads the diff gives you an opinion. Qodex opens the real app, runs the scenario, and gives you the result.

Diff-only reviewer

ai-reviewercommented on line 42

This query may leak data across tenants. Consider scoping billing lookups by organisation.

opinion

Qodex

GET /v1/orgs/{orgB}/billing
as org_A_admin
expected 403 · got 200

Screenshot attached · scenario: Admin can't read another org's billing

Qodex / security · 1 critical · merge blocked

evidence

Example finding. Real ones link to the pull request.

Intelligence once. Replay for free.

The model writes a scenario once. Replays are generated code with no model call, so the suite gets bigger without the bill getting bigger.

Every failure comes back as one of three things.

That distinction is the difference between a gate your team trusts and a bot your team mutes.

a test fails

real bugThe failing request, the response, and a screenshot, attached.

stale testQodex proposes the fix as a diff. You approve it.

environmentFlagged as infrastructure, not counted against the suite.

Scenarios are standard Playwright and HTTP you own and can export.

Why engineering leaders choose Qodex

Mavim's APIs sit behind Microsoft SSO and browser-based authentication. Qodex runs their end-to-end API scenarios through that flow, so a change that took a couple of weeks to ship now ships in two days.

Wouter Jan de BaanCPO, Mavim

Two weekstwo daysshipping a complex API change

Read the full case study

Agentbilling-api

Run an OWASP API Top-10 check on GET /v1/orgs/{org}/billing and file anything you find.

▼Sub-agent: probe billing endpointCompleted

Walking the OWASP API Top-10 against the live endpoint. Starting with object-level authorization: I will request another org as an Org A admin and check for a leak, then sweep auth and rate limiting before I file.

Read endpoint contract

GET /v1/orgs/{org}/billing · org-scoped resource

Sent request as Org A admin -> 200

token=<org_A_admin> · org param = org_8842

Expected 403 (cross-tenant)

no org-scope check on the billing resource

Confirmed BOLA

read another org billing · mrr 41200 leaked

Checked broken auth -> 401 ok

unauthenticated request correctly rejected

Checked rate limiting -> retry_after present

429 after 60 req/min · retry_after = 30s

Filed finding F-2048

CRITICAL · CVSS 8.6 · against pull/1473

Saved regression scenario TS-058 ...

caught on every PR from now on

FindingF-2048

CRITICALCVSS 8.6·Access control

Broken object-level authorization (BOLA)

EndpointGET /v1/orgs/{orgB}/billing

Evidence

Status 200 · expected 403

{
  "org_id": "org_8842",
  "plan": "scale",
  "mrr": 41200
}

$41,200 billing returned for the wrong org. The signed-in admin does not belong to org_8842.

finding F-2048 · pull/1473 · detected 0.8s into run

Summary

Tested the billing endpoint against the OWASP API Top-10.
Confirmed 1 critical: cross-tenant read (BOLA).
Filed finding F-2048 against pull/1473.
Saved regression scenario TS-058 so this is caught on every PR.

Checks run

10 / 10

Critical

Auth · rate-limit

Product view. Example data.

How Mavim ships SSO-gated API changes in two days

Fits the stack you have

Nothing to install in your app. No agent in your CI. No test rewrite.

GitHub app in minutes
Install on the repositories you choose. Qodex reviews the next pull request.
Runs against your preview or staging URL
No SDK in your app, no runner in your pipeline. Point it at a URL.
Your tests, your key
Scenarios are standard Playwright and HTTP you keep if you leave. Bring your own model key; every token is logged.

Code

GitHub
GitLab
CLI

Chat and alerts

Slack
Microsoft Teams
Webhooks

Incidents

Sentry
Jira
Datadog
New Relic
PagerDuty

Specs and tests

OpenAPI
Postman
Playwright
Spreadsheets

Everything Qodex writes is code you can read, export and run without Qodex.

Questions teams ask before switching.

How is this different from an AI code reviewer or bug bot?

Code reviewers read the diff and guess. Qodex runs your scenarios against the real running app, then shows what actually broke. One reads, the other runs. Try both for a sprint and compare what each one catches.

Does Qodex change our code, merge, or deploy on its own?

No. It posts findings and status checks on your pull requests, and a human decides what merges. When a test goes stale it proposes the repair as a diff for you to approve.

What access does Qodex need, and what happens to our code and data?

The app requests read access to your pull requests, not write access to your source. Data is encrypted in transit and at rest on servers in the United States, isolated per project, never sold, and never used to train models.

How are our credentials handled, and what do model providers see?

Environment tokens are cached for thirty minutes, cleared when you save an environment, and redacted in API responses. Bring your own model key if you prefer; every call is logged, provider agreements exclude training on your data, and cached replays make no model call at all.

How long does setup take, and what do we have to install?

Install the GitHub app on the repositories you choose and point Qodex at a preview or staging URL. Nothing goes into your application, no runner goes into your CI, and no existing test has to be rewritten. The next pull request gets reviewed.

Do we need a preview environment?

Qodex runs scenarios against a URL: a per-PR preview deploy if you have one, otherwise a shared staging environment. API scenarios need the API reachable; UI scenarios need the app reachable in a browser.

What about false positives?

Every failure is classified before it reaches you: a real bug arrives with the failing request, response and screenshot; a stale test arrives as a proposed repair you approve; an environment problem is flagged and not counted against the suite. Findings that carry no evidence do not block a merge.

Who maintains the scenarios when the product changes?

Qodex does the first pass. When a change breaks a scenario rather than the product, it proposes the updated scenario as a diff; you approve or edit it. Imports from OpenAPI, Postman, spreadsheets and existing tests are kept current from there.

What do we own if we leave?

Everything. Scenarios are standard Playwright and HTTP code you can export and run anywhere, with no proprietary runtime.

Get started

Stop merging on faith.

Install the GitHub app, point Qodex at your staging URL, and the next pull request gets tested before it merges.

Get started Book a demo

Nothing to install in your app
No credit card
Scenarios you own

You automated the factory.The inspection line is still manual.

One agent runs review, testing, and security from the same scenarios.

Every pull request, tested before it merges.

Change

Context

Execution

Evidence

Verdict

Memory

Diff-only review guesses.Execution-backed review knows.