Bito Reviews

Summary: Good experience and the speed and efficient of code reviews are getting improved day by day and with each update

Positive: Bito's CRA helped to catch edge cases early once the PR is created and Bito ran it's code review. The feature that i like most in Bito's CRA is the ability of context-aware feedback and suggestions. Its very helpful for developers like me that Bito's CRA has the feature to configure custom guidelines or own set of policies for the code review feedback

Negative: Reviews on very large PRs can still feel slow but manageable

Summary: Bito’s code review capabilities are top-tier. It flags risky logic, improves readability, and helps enforce best practices across the team.

Positive: Tried Bito out for reviewing PRs, and it didn’t disappoint. It doesn’t just look at syntax – it understands context and logic. That’s rare. Saved me from shipping a subtle bug last week.

Negative: It occasionally over-flags things — like minor changes that our team doesn’t really care about. Can feel nitpicky unless you fine-tune it.

Summary: We’ve had Bito’s AI Code Review Agent running in production for 6+ months. Our team of 75 engineers ships fast with ~300+ PRs each week. I’ve trialed most AI review tools and Bito's is the only one that actually helps.

We integrated it with GitHub. Every PR gets auto-reviewed with targeted feedback. One example: it flagged a risky SQL pattern in a PR from a junior dev before merge, before staging. Would’ve been a sev2 issue in prod. The /review security command caught it.

The PR summaries are clean. Comments land fast, don’t spam, and are usually accurate. Junior engineers learn from them. Senior team members waste less time on formatting and more time on logic. Bito saves us hours weekly, and the review rules adapt based on feedback.

Positive: + Symbol indexing, AST, and embeddings gives it a real edge. Suggestions feel smart.
+ PR review time dropped ~60%.
+ /review performance, security is dead simple and useful.
+ improves based on our team’s feedback. No other tool has done that well.
+ works in GitHub and CLI. UI is solid. Properties file is clear for self-hosted setups.

Negative: - no IDE-triggered review yet.
- single comment mode needs a flag.
- rules dashboard is early and needs bulk editing, tags, filtering.
- it’s excellent, but not magic.

Summary: Bito is a solid AI code review tool. We have been using it internally for more than 7 months and it has cut down our code review time by more than 70%. The biggest upside is it's context awareness. No matter what changes you ship, its reviews are always context and codebase aware.

Positive: - Bito's AI Code Reviews are context and codebase aware
- You can chat with the agent in PR comments. Helps you understand the suggestions
- Provides an overall summary of the PR
- The changelist is super helpful in understanding the changes
- Our shipping speed has increased manifold, keeping bugs in check

Negative: Nothing. It is comprehensive code review solution.

Summary: Solid tool for AI-driven code reviews. The Bito team provides great support.
The PR summaries are useful for reviewers, and the suggestions help authors improve through learning.

Positive: Easy to set up and integrates seamlessly with our GitHub workflow.

The suggestions are context-aware, catching bugs and edge cases early, helping both reviewers and authors.

The biggest impact has been speed and consistency. Reviews now take half the time, and our custom guidelines are automatically enforced.

We’re shipping with fewer bugs and more confidence.

It’s not a replacement for engineers. It just makes the process faster and more reliable.

Negative: No complaints so far. Human review is required for final judgment.

Summary: Bito is a powerful tool that significantly speeds up code reviews. It understands our codebase better than any other tool we've tried. Bito delivers accurate suggestions and fits seamlessly into our workflow.

Positive: - Bito understands my full codebase to provide context-aware code reviews.
- Highly customizable AI with custom code review rules and guidelines.
- AI chat for pull requests
- Code review analytics
- Works with GitHub, GitLab, and Bitbucket.
- Installation options include Cloud-based (SaaS) and On-premises
- SOC 2 Type II certified

Negative: Honestly, no downsides yet. It’s the most reliable code review tool we’ve used.

Summary: Within a couple of weeks of usage, I had determined that Bito did not actually provide any real improvements over existing processes. Most of the losses are due to the fact that you cannot trust it to do what it is told, resulting in the need to perform the more manual processes anyway. If you cannot trust in a process being done as requested, and cannot trust the organization behind the process, then you are adding additional overhead instead of automation. I found the code completion of Tabnine, which is based on the content of your solution as a whole, to be far more productive than Bito. Even if it isn't correct 100% of the time, it is often significantly faster to review what it suggests and select it or continue on typing, than to retype entire blocks that you or others had entered for similar processes earlier.

Positive: * I liked that I would be able to see how much each member of the dev team was making use of the product, and could impose spending limits.
* I also liked that it would generate all unit tests for a process, rather than the user having to copy and paste or insert generated content into a test file.
* I was excited about having it perform code reviews, thinking that it would reduce the workload of Tech Leads.

Negative: * As you use the product for a while, you being finding that the initial estimations of efficiency are exaggerated. The work it performs is incomplete.
* You can highlight a section of code, such as the full content of a class, and tell it to perform a code review, but it may choose to perform a code review on your entire codebase instead, and it is very slow at perform said reviews.
* Code reviews are incomplete and of such poor quality, that you must still perform a full code review manually. Many of its recommendations are not completely accurate, and/or of no consequence.
* SURPRISE BILLING: You can set billing limits, but by design, the system will change those limits as it sees fit. I set an overage limit of $30 per user, which Bito recommended, but after running a couple of code reviews in which the system chose to review the entire codebase, the system automatically changed the limit to a value of $280 per user. There are many terms to describe this illegal behavior, such as bait-and-switch or false advertising, but regardless of what you call it, it is unfair, unethical, and illegal. When I contacted their support team about the issue, their response was, "Hi, for users who are using our Code Review agent our system changes the overage limit so that you don't hit the limits after a small number of code reviews." Had I not noticed the email sent after the fact, I could be spending a LOT more than I agreed to.
* Bito also does a very bad job of generating unit tests. After running a code coverage report, I found that it omitted entire methods. The tests that it generates for TypeScript in Jest, required a lot of additional work before they would run. The tests are poorly written, use too many mocked processes, fail to monitor spies for proper error messages, and require a lot more work than other test generation AIs.
* Bito also does not have very good code completion support in VS Code. The free version of Tabnine is far better.