Skip to main content
Autter reviews proposed changes in GitHub and GitLab. It looks beyond syntax to evaluate logic paths, edge cases, codebase conventions, and the wider impact of a change.
Placeholder showing an Autter inline pull request finding with an explanation and suggested fix

Placeholder: replace with an approved pull request review screenshot.

​
What a review includes

  • a concise summary of the change
  • a walkthrough of important files and behavior
  • inline findings tied to affected code
  • architectural context or diagrams when available
  • suggested fixes for actionable findings
  • results from enabled rules, linters, and scanners

​
What Autter looks for

Autter is designed to find issues that can survive a surface-level review:
  • incorrect assumptions and unhandled edge cases
  • security and authorization mistakes
  • code that conflicts with repository architecture
  • deviations from team conventions
  • missing or weak tests around changed behavior
  • dependency and scanner findings relevant to the diff
  • behavior that appears correct in isolation but fails in the wider codebase

​
How context changes the review

A generic rule might flag every direct database call. A codebase-aware review can distinguish between an approved repository layer and a controller that bypasses it. Autter can ground feedback in:
  • related files and dependencies
  • established repository patterns
  • natural-language team rules
  • prior review comments and team knowledge
  • linked issues and documentation
  • current linter and scanner results

​
Use team rules

Define standards in plain language. For example:
Payment webhooks must be idempotent and include a test for repeated delivery.
Keep rules specific and testable. See Review rules and Create a custom rule.

​
Handle findings

1

Read the review summary

Understand the intent and affected systems before inspecting individual comments.
2

Prioritize behavior and risk

Address security, correctness, and data integrity findings before style or maintainability feedback.
3

Review suggested fixes

Treat every generated fix as proposed code. Check it against tests, requirements, and repository conventions.
4

Update the pull request

Push changes and review the latest Autter result alongside human feedback.
5

Improve noisy rules

Refine a rule or pipeline check when it repeatedly flags valid code.
Autter supports human review; it does not replace it. Reviewers still own architecture, product intent, operational tradeoffs, and approval.