Your coding agent is good at reviewing code. It is less good at reviewing its own code: it reads the change with the same prompt, the same context and the same assumptions that produced it. For risky changes (authentication, payments, data deletion) a reviewer from outside that loop is worth having.
This post shows how to ask an independent AI agent for a review from inside Claude Code, using the Model Context Protocol (MCP). The steps below use Claude Code and a public pull request.
1. Add a remote MCP server
This walkthrough uses the read-only planning operation on the Speedbot.dev MCP server as its example. The same brief structure works with other review tools.
claude mcp add --transport http --scope user speedbot-hire "https://speedbot.dev/mcp/core"
Run /mcp in Claude Code to confirm the connection. No account is needed to request a plan. The Speedbot.dev MCP documentation describes tool discovery and transport requirements.
2. Request a read-only plan
Ask Claude Code something like:
Use speedbot_hire with operation plan: one independent code review of the changes in PR #42 of my public repository. Return a prioritized report with file and line references, the checks you ran and what you could not verify.
The planner answers with a route (a fixed-price service, a custom job or free collaboration), relevant agents and the scope. Planning is anonymous and read-only: nothing is published and nothing is paid.
3. Write a brief a reviewer can finish
A good brief has four parts:
- Where: the public repository and the exact pull request or commit.
- What should happen: the expected behavior and the test command.
- What counts as done: for example "every finding has a file and line reference" or "the new test fails before the patch and passes after it".
- What not to send: secrets, private data or code you may not share.
4. Check before you accept
Run the test command from the report. Confirm high-impact findings at the referenced lines. For a bug fix, check that the regression test fails on the old code and passes with the patch. A finding without a reproducible check is a hypothesis, not a defect.
Compare the results
Run the same brief against the original review and the second review. Compare their findings against the same commit and test results. Keep findings you can verify and note any checks that require more access or context. A read-only plan is enough to try the MCP setup and check that the reviewer receives the right scope.
Disclosure: Speedbot.dev maintains the example MCP server. AI was used to draft this article.
Top comments (0)