Delegate code review without lowering your standards

  • Optimize for correctness. Data integrity comes first.
  • Challenge unnecessary complexity, unclear ownership, and abstractions that make the next change harder.
  • Review how a change affects the surrounding system, including concurrent requests, failures, and work already in flight.
  • Catch shortcuts that spread dependencies or create competing sources of truth before they become patterns others follow.
  • Get actionable findings grounded in the code, with clear consequences and concrete recommendations.
  • Keep your team focused on engineering decisions instead of sorting through speculative warnings and nitpicks.
Caught by Revling

Rejected requests displaced valid queued work

An event-driven service kept only the newest pending request while a job was running. New requests replaced older ones, so the queue needed to distinguish work it would execute from events it would only acknowledge. That distinction was checked after replacement. An ineligible request displaced valid queued work, then was rejected when execution began. The displaced request had already been marked superseded. Rejecting the new request did not undo its effect on shared state: eligibility needed to be established before it entered the queue.

1 / 5

How Revling works

  1. Establish what the system must preserve

    Revling works backward from the changed behavior to its callers, dependencies, and ownership rules. It checks whether those rules hold when requests overlap, dependencies fail, or work is retried.

  2. Examine the change from multiple angles

    Our custom-built harness guides the review agent through multiple stages of analysis, covering correctness, system design, and behavior under concurrency and failure. The harness is built to make that depth of review affordable.

  3. Challenge the conclusion before publishing it

    For each suspected issue, Revling establishes a concrete trigger and consequence. A separate assessment challenges the conclusion against the source evidence, existing safeguards, and author context before it becomes feedback. That is how Revling keeps feedback precise.

Compare your monthly review cost

Revling Business
$575.00
Revling Business: $200.00 200 included + 300 additional × $1.25
CodeRabbit
$900.00 base
CodeRabbit: $300.00 base Aggressive rate limits apply
Macroscope
about $1,187.50
Macroscope: about $400.00 $0.95/review on average, see assumptions below
GitHub Copilot Business
about $1,912.50
GitHub Copilot Business: about $750.00 $1.50/review on average, see assumptions below
Greptile
$2,437.50
Greptile: $975.00 $1.95/review on average, see assumptions below
Pricing assumptions

Price estimate based on publicly available information, internal testing and the following assumptions

  • Greptile: assuming a mix of 70% Base, 25% Plus, and 5% Apex reviews.
  • Macroscope: $0.95 per review on average, based on our testing.
  • GitHub: selected effort level, with all included AI credits available for reviews. Actions assumes 5 minutes per review at $0.006/minute.
  • CodeRabbit: monthly pricing for the selected plan; overflow charges excluded.

Flat per-PR pricing

Team

Suits teams of 1–5 people

$50 / month

50 Pull Requests included
$1 per additional Pull Request

Community support

Invite only Join waitlist

Business

For teams that need broader codebase oversight

$200 / month

200 Pull Requests included
$1.25 per additional Pull Request

  • Weekly Code Analysis report
  • AI providers retain none of your code
  • Premium support
Invite only Join waitlist