AI PR review, backed by real test runs
Qodex reads the diff, then does what diff-only reviewers cannot: it runs your API and UI tests against the real app and probes the changed surface for security regressions. Every finding arrives with the failing request, response, and screenshot.
4.9 / 5 from 60 reviews on G2PR review is one module of Qodex, the agentic AI QA platform: the same autonomous agent covers UI testing, API testing, and security on every pull request.
Scenario "Admin can't read another org's billing" failed: GET /v1/orgs/{orgB}/billing returned 200, expected 403.
GET /v1/orgs/org_8842/billing Authorization: Bearer <org_A_admin>
{ "org_id": "org_8842",
"plan": "scale", "mrr": 41200 }See it on a real PR
Review comments are easy to claim and hard to trust. The test is whether a tool catches a real regression on a real pull request and shows you the evidence. Here is Qodex doing exactly that.
What is AI PR review?
AI PR review is an automated pass over a pull request that reads the change, flags likely bugs and risks, and posts feedback before a human reviews. It shortens the loop between opening a PR and knowing whether it is safe to merge. Most tools do this by analyzing the diff statically: they read the changed code, sometimes with a code graph for context, and comment on what looks wrong.
Qodex (qodex.ai, the agentic AI QA platform, not to be confused with Qodo) takes the review one step the others do not: it runs. Qodex executes your API and UI tests against the real app for the PR and probes the changed surface for security regressions. The result is a review grounded in what the code actually does, with findings backed by the failing request, response, and screenshot, rather than a comment describing a suspicion. It is the pull-request front end of the wider agentic AI QA platform.
How Qodex reviews a pull request
A three-step loop: you open a PR, Qodex reviews and runs your tests against the real app, and it files findings you can act on without re-verifying them by hand.
You open a pull request
The Qodex GitHub App picks it up and posts a status check. It already knows your repository and the test scenarios you have saved, so it starts with context, not a cold read of the diff.
Qodex reviews and executes
It reviews the diff, runs your API and UI scenarios against the real app, and fires OWASP-aligned security probes at the changed endpoints and flows.
It files findings you can trust
Real bugs land inline with the failing request, response, and screenshot; stale tests come with a suggested fix; environment issues are labelled as such. Chat with the agent, and gate the merge when you want to.
What the review runs
Every pull request gets the same fixed battery: 52 checks, deterministic analyzers plus an LLM review pass run across two reviewer models that keep each other honest, so a finding one model rationalizes away, the other still catches. Execution then turns those opinions into verdicts.
| Diff review | Static analyzers plus an LLM read of the change and its blast radius, cross-checked before anything posts to the PR. |
|---|---|
| Test execution | Your saved API and browser scenarios run against the live app for the PR. The verdict is what actually happened, not what the diff implies. |
| Security probes | OWASP-aligned hostile-mode probes for IDOR/BOLA, auth bypass, and injection on the changed surface. A pass means the attack was blocked. |
| Evidence | Every finding carries the failing request, the response, and a screenshot, not just a comment describing a concern. |
| Triage | Each failure is filed as a real bug, a stale test the code outgrew (with a suggested fix), or an environment issue, so the review is not noisy. |
| Agent chat | Ask the agent why it flagged something, or to dig deeper on a file, right in the pull request, and get an answer grounded in the run. |
What execution catches that diff-only review misses
A static reviewer can suspect these; only a run proves them. Each of the four below is a bug class that reads as a clean diff and fails only when the code actually runs.
Authorization regressions
A removed access check reads as a clean diff. A scenario that requests another user’s record as the wrong user fails, and the IDOR is caught before merge, not in a pentest six months later.
Breaks across services
A response shape changes in one repo and quietly breaks a consumer in another. A static read of one diff cannot see it; a multi-step scenario that chains the two calls fails loudly.
Runtime regressions
Code that type-checks and looks correct can still 500 on a real request or return the wrong body. Executing the endpoint is the only way to know, and the review does exactly that.
Real bugs, not likely ones
A pattern matcher reports what might be wrong and leaves you to confirm it. A run reports what is wrong, with the request and response that prove it, so triage is reading evidence, not re-deriving it.
Qodex vs diff-only reviewers
Diff-only reviewers, including the strong ones with a code graph, read your changed code and comment on what looks risky. That is genuinely useful. The difference is execution: Qodex runs your tests and security probes against the real app, so the review reports what happened, not only what the diff suggests.
| Diff-only reviewers | Qodex | |
|---|---|---|
| What the review works from | The diff and surrounding source, read statically | The diff, plus your tests executed against the real running app |
| Catching regressions | Pattern-matches likely bugs from the changed code | Runs API and UI scenarios and reports what actually broke |
| Security | Flags risky-looking patterns in the diff | Runs OWASP-aligned probes (IDOR/BOLA, auth bypass, injection) on the live endpoints |
| Evidence on a finding | A comment explaining the concern | The failing request, the response, and a screenshot |
| False positives | No run to confirm, so guesses stand | Failures classified as real bug, stale test, or environment issue first |
| After merge | Review ends at merge | The same scenarios replay on every future PR and deploy, deterministically |
See how Qodex stacks up against point tools on the alternatives overview.
Where it fits your workflow
Qodex installs as a GitHub App and posts a status check on every pull request. The review is the same engine as the rest of the platform, so the scenarios it runs on a PR are the scenarios that keep running after merge.
On every PR
A status check and inline findings on the pull request, with results also routed to CI/CD, Slack, Jira, and Cursor (via MCP).
At the merge gate
On Pro Plus, gate the merge on findings and run custom pre-merge checks, so a real bug or a failing security probe stops the PR instead of shipping.
After merge
The same scenarios replay on every future PR and deploy, deterministically, so coverage compounds across the whole test suite.
Per-developer Pro and Pro Plus pricing, plus a free PR-summary tier, is on the pricing page.
See PR Review pricingPR review FAQ
Honest answers to what teams ask before putting an AI reviewer on their pull requests.
Comparing options? See our CodeRabbit alternatives guide, the best AI code review tools roundup, and our walkthrough of how to do code reviews using AI.
AI PR review is an automated pass over a pull request that reads the change, flags likely bugs and risks, and posts feedback before a human reviews. Most tools do this by analyzing the diff statically. Qodex goes further: it reviews the diff, then runs your API and UI tests against the real app and probes the changed surface for security regressions, so the review is grounded in what the code actually does, not only in what the diff looks like.
Stop reviewing diffs. Start reviewing what runs.
Connect a repository, open a pull request, and watch Qodex run your tests against the real app and file findings with evidence.