01 Quality
Recall and false positives.
Which combinations found the real issues without flooding review with noise.
03 Client confidential · AI reliability engineering
Eight review skills, multiple models and harnesses, and a benchmark grounded in an eight-sprint bug inventory.
We analyzed the complete bug inventory from eight sprints, including real P1 and P2 reports, then prepared a sample of 12 diffs with seven known positives. Three of those positives were P1 or P2 issues.
Eight code-review skills were tested across different models and harnesses. We also adjudicated 80 additional findings, including false positives, so the comparison could measure more than whether a tool found the seeded issues.
The recommendations reduced false-positive noise in code review and improved the precision of issue-severity assessment.
Benchmark inventory
01 Quality
Which combinations found the real issues without flooding review with noise.
02 Judgement
How accurately each combination assessed the seriousness of a finding.
03 Economy
The cost of useful findings, not just the volume of review output.
The comparison produced separate recommendations for CI and local use.
Local implementation workflow
After the first development pass, the agent enters a review-fix loop. It keeps going until two consecutive reviews are green.
The average number of review cycles needed to reach that condition fell from five to two.
Measure the reviewer
We measure your review workflow and show you where quality, cost or false-positive noise is slowing delivery. Explore our AI reliability engineering service.