open-code-review
Secure, fast, efficient, battle-tested at Alibaba's scale. Hybrid architecture code review tool: deterministic pipelines + LLM Agent, precise line-level comments, built-in multi-language ruleset (NPE, thread-safety, XSS, SQL injection), OpenAI & Anthropic compatible.
Runssource: GitHubhomepageGoApache-2.0commit a694be568d9b
Go, Apache-2.0 licensed. The project labels itself: agent, agent skills, code review, code review assistant, harness and repository level context.
open-code-review runs. An Argusic agent installed it in 15 minutes and hit 2 errors and fixed every one without help on a clean machine with no GPU, and the whole session was recorded.
The open-code-review CLI binary builds successfully from source, passes all 23 Go unit test suites, runs and prints version/help output, and passes formatting, vet, license, and english-only checks with 92.5% code coverage.
What the agent ended up with on a clean machine, in its own words. How this is measured
Measured by Argusic on a fresh machine every time. Every number links to its evidence. Argusic Score 97.3 of 100 (the mean of this project's run scores).
At a glance
Subject data from GitHub, linked at the top of this page, refreshed . Test data by Argusic (CC BY 4.0); every number links to a run page with the full log, the recording, and their sha256 hashes.
What was measured
From the run that decided this verdict. Every line is a recorded value, not an estimate.
What went wrong, in the agent's own words
The agent's own words, worst first, never rewritten into advice.
- Go toolchain not installed in container5 minutes
- npm install -g fails with EACCES (no root)1 minute
- Install time
- 15 minutes
- Cold machine to finish
- 15 minutes
- Errors hit and fixed
- 2 hit, 2 fixed with no human help
- How the result was proved
- make test exited 0, 23 Go packages all ok; binary dist/opencodereview prints 'open-code-review v0.0.0-a694be5 (a694be5) linux/amd64'; make coverage returned 92.5% (above 90% threshold); make check passed (licenses, english-check, gofmt, go vet)
- Model tokens used
- 57,250
- Exact commit tested
- a694be568d9b
- Container image
- sha256:cdd920bce783
What was not measured
The other half, so you can see exactly how far this evidence goes. A gap is printed as a gap and never filled in.
- Peak GPU memory
- this ran on a CPU machine, so there was no GPU to sample
- Behaviour over a long run
- each attempt uses the smallest documented settings and a fixed time budget, so this measures whether it runs, not how it holds up under load
Watch the session
The whole run, from a clean machine, at the speed it actually happened. Nothing is cut and nothing is sped up.
A recording of attempt 1, run . The verdict above comes from a different attempt, so read this as one session and not as the current result. The terminal recording it was made from is the evidence, stored with a sha256 fingerprint; the video is a rendering of it. Nothing loads from the video host until you press play.
The end of the recording
The last lines of the terminal session that decided this verdict, exactly as they were recorded.
go tool cover -func=coverage.out | grep total: total: (statements) 92.5% PASS: Coverage 92.5% meets 90% threshold All packages report 100% coverage where tested, and the aggregate is **92.5%** — well above the 90%… exec /bin/sh -lc '/work/repo/dist/opencodereview version; echo "---"; /work/repo/dist/opencodereview hel… succeeded in 67227ms: 23 Everything is verified. Here's the result: tokens used 57,250 Everything is verified. Here's the result:
Replay the whole session, every command from a clean machine to this point.
How it was tested
One agent, one container, no human help. It installs the project the way its own documentation says to, runs it, and fixes what breaks. Everything below is recorded as it happened: the terminal session, the log and the exact commit. The full method.
Strengths and limits
Measured facts, not opinions. How this is written.
What went well
- Reached a running state on a clean machine, with the session recorded.
- Recovered from all 2 errors without a human stepping in, which says the failures are documented well enough to solve.
- Ran without a GPU, so it does not need one to start.
- Licensed Apache-2.0, as reported by its host.
- Measured 3 times, so the result is not a one-off.
What did not, or is not known
- Took 15 minutes to install, slower than the median of the 32 comparable projects Argusic has measured.
Of the 33 agent projects Argusic has installed and timed, open-code-review was the 24th fastest to reach a running state, and 25 of 33 reached one at all.
What it is a reasonable choice for
- Trying it on a laptop or a small server: it reached a running state without a GPU.
Also tested, in the same area
Every one of these was installed and run by Argusic on a clean machine. Nothing appears here that was not tested.
Run history
Topics (from GitHub)
agentagent-skillscode-reviewcode-review-assistantharnessrepository-level-context
Embed the badge
Markdown for the project README. It links back here; terms on the terms page.
[](https://argusic.com/subject/open-code-review)Questions
- Does open-code-review run?
- Yes. open-code-review runs. Argusic installed and launched it on a clean machine in 15 minutes, hitting 2 errors on the way, and recorded the session.
- How did Argusic test open-code-review?
- On a fresh, disposable machine, with every command recorded and the repository pinned at commit a694be568d9b. 3 attempts are recorded, and the full method is on the methodology page.
- What did it cost to test open-code-review?
- The run that produced this verdict cost $0.05: real compute and model cost, not a list price per million tokens. It is recorded on that run's page.
- How long does open-code-review take to install?
- 15 minutes in the run that decided this verdict, from a clean machine to a running state. That is one measured attempt, not an average.
- Does open-code-review need a GPU?
- Not to start. Argusic reached a running state on a machine with no GPU.
- What goes wrong when installing open-code-review?
- 2 things broke in the recorded run, and 2 were fixed without human help. Each one, and the time it cost, is listed on this page.
- How does open-code-review compare with the alternatives?
- Of the 33 agent projects Argusic has installed and timed, open-code-review was the 24th fastest to reach a running state, and 25 of 33 reached one at all.
- Where is the evidence for open-code-review?
- All 3 recorded runs are on this page, each linking to its full log and terminal recording, stored with a sha256 fingerprint so it cannot be quietly altered.