GitHub Copilot changed how many developers write code. By suggesting lines, functions, and even entire blocks, it helped speed up development in a way few tools had before. But as teams adopted Copilot more widely, a new question started coming up during reviews: writing code faster is great, but how do we review that code effectively?
This is where the conversation around github code review has evolved. Copilot helps generate code, but it isn’t designed to review pull requests in depth. It doesn’t consistently explain risks, highlight architectural concerns, or adapt to how a team reviews code. Because of that, many teams now look for alternatives that focus specifically on the review stage rather than code generation.
Where GitHub Copilot Falls Short in Reviews
Copilot works inside the editor. It helps developers while they write code, not when the code is being reviewed. Once a pull request is opened, most of Copilot’s value is already behind you.
Reviewers still have to:
Read through the diff manually
Identify risky changes
Point out repeated issues
Explain feedback to other developers
Maintain consistency across reviews
For teams handling a high volume of PRs, this creates friction. The code may be generated quickly, but the review process remains slow and manual.
Why Review-Focused Tools Are Gaining Attention
Modern engineering teams don’t just want faster coding. They want faster decision-making. Reviews are where those decisions happen.
Review-focused tools are built around pull requests rather than editors. They look at what changed, how it affects the codebase, and where problems are most likely to appear. Instead of suggesting how to write code, they help teams understand and evaluate the code that’s already written.
This distinction is important. Writing assistance and review assistance solve very different problems.
What Makes a Strong Copilot Alternative for Code Review
When teams search for alternatives, they usually care less about features and more about outcomes. Tools that work better than Copilot in reviews tend to share a few characteristics.
PR-Centric Design
The tool should work directly inside pull requests, leaving inline comments where reviewers already look. Switching dashboards slows everything down.
Context Awareness
Instead of flagging every small issue, good review tools highlight the parts of the change that deserve attention. This reduces noise and review fatigue.
Consistency
Automated review helps ensure the same standards are applied to every PR, regardless of who reviews it.
Speed
Feedback should arrive quickly, ideally as soon as the PR is opened, so developers can fix issues while the context is still fresh.
Tools That Work Better for Review Than Copilot
There are now several tools designed specifically to improve reviews rather than code generation.
Some newer platforms focus entirely on pull requests. They analyze the diff, generate summaries, and leave targeted feedback before a human reviewer even starts. One example is Cubic, which integrates directly with GitHub and focuses on PR-level feedback instead of editor suggestions. By learning from a team’s past reviews, it aims to reduce repetitive comments and make reviews feel more natural over time.
This type of AI code review tool fits better into team workflows where review speed and consistency matter more than writing assistance.
Other platforms take a broader approach, combining automated checks with dashboards and long-term quality tracking. These can be useful for teams that want visibility across multiple repositories, but they often feel heavier than PR-focused tools.
How Teams Are Using These Tools Together
Many teams don’t replace Copilot entirely. Instead, they pair it with a review-focused solution.
A common setup looks like this:
Copilot helps developers write code faster
An AI review tool evaluates the pull request
Human reviewers focus on logic, design, and intent
This combination works well because each tool does what it’s best at. Copilot accelerates creation. Review tools improve evaluation.
Common Mistakes When Choosing a Review Alternative
One mistake teams make is expecting a review tool to behave like a linter. Modern AI review tools aren’t meant to enforce rigid rules. They work best when they support reviewers, not replace judgment.
Another mistake is enabling too many checks at once. This creates noise and leads developers to ignore automated feedback entirely. The most successful teams start small and let the tool adapt over time.
Final Thoughts
GitHub Copilot is excellent at helping developers write code, but it was never meant to handle the full complexity of code review. As AI-generated code becomes more common, the need for better review tools becomes even more important.
Teams that care about speed, consistency, and quality are increasingly separating writing assistance from review assistance. By using Copilot alongside tools designed specifically for reviewing pull requests, teams get the best of both worlds.
When it comes to choosing what works better, the answer often isn’t a single tool—but a workflow where each tool supports the stage it’s actually built for.
Top comments (0)