ThinkReview

ThinkReview is an AI reviewer for pull and merge requests, delivered through a browser sidebar or coding-assistant integrations. It is best suited to developers who want feedback shaped to their project and retain approval over every posted comment. Local-model support is a notable option, while daily credit limits and unclear trial terms merit attention.

Overview

Reviews are started manually, and ThinkReview keeps the final decision with the developer: you can discuss a change, edit the review comment and post it yourself. Nothing is written to a pull request until you publish it. That makes the product a better fit for teams seeking review assistance than for those expecting an autonomous reviewer to comment without oversight.

Feedback covers code quality, security and best practices, with quality scoring, follow-up questions and fix suggestions. Custom rules and project-specific agents can align reviews with a team’s standards and technology stack. These controls are useful for consistent, tailored feedback, but the number of agents per pull request is capped on paid plans and review credits limit daily use.

Key features

Code-host and assistant workflows

The browser extension supports GitHub, GitLab, Azure DevOps and Bitbucket, including several self-hosted editions. ThinkReview MCP also enables live pull request reviews from Cursor, Claude Code and Copilot, returning structured feedback. This gives developers a route to reviews from coding assistants as well as the browser sidebar.

Local and enterprise deployment

Reviews can run on local models through Ollama without sending patches to the cloud, including on air-gapped machines. That is a strong fit for organizations that cannot send code diffs to an external service. For cloud reviews, the maker says diffs are processed in memory, discarded rather than stored, and not used for AI training. Cloud conversation data may be retained for up to 90 days for operational purposes, so local patch processing does not mean every part of the workflow stays local.

The Enterprise Gateway routes diffs, Git tool results and model traffic through the customer’s network. It is available on the Teams plan after enterprise provisioning, making it a more specialized deployment path than the self-serve plans.

Pricing

It is aimed at individual developers and supports GitHub.com and GitLab.com, with two review credits per day and a limit of 1,000 lines of code changes per pull request. That is enough for occasional small-PR feedback, but the host and size limits narrow its usefulness for teams or larger changes.

Lite costs $10 a month. It raises the allowance to 15 review credits per day, supports pull requests up to 40,000 lines, allows up to three custom review agents per pull request, and adds GitLab custom domains and Bitbucket Cloud. It suits developers needing broader host coverage or larger reviews, though it lacks the five-agent allowance and additional enterprise-host support of Professional.

Professional costs $16 a month and includes 25 review credits per day, up to five custom agents per pull request, GitHub Enterprise Server, Azure DevOps Cloud and Server, and priority support. It is the stronger fit for teams using those hosts or needing the higher daily allowance; the available plan details do not establish a seat allowance. Teams has custom pricing, and enterprise provisioning is required for its Enterprise Gateway.

Lite and Professional have inconsistent trial durations: the pricing FAQ gives seven days on monthly billing and 14 days on annual billing, while the homepage pricing section labels both as five-day free trials. Confirm the applicable trial period before relying on it. Cloud conversations may also be retained for up to 90 days, a relevant operational term for privacy-conscious teams.

Platforms

ThinkReview supports API, browser extension, Linux, macOS, web and Windows. Its listed code hosts are GitHub, GitLab, Azure DevOps and Bitbucket; MCP connects live reviews with Cursor, Claude Code and Copilot.

Who it's for

Developers and teams that want project-specific AI feedback, manual review control and multiple code-host options are the clearest fit. Local Ollama support also suits users who need patches to remain off cloud services, while the Gateway addresses organizations routing review traffic through their own network. Teams wanting automatic posting, more than 25 daily credits, or broad free-plan coverage should look elsewhere.

Pros and cons

Pros: Nothing reaches a pull request until a developer posts it, reducing the risk of unapproved AI comments.

Pros: Custom rules, project-specific agents and feedback across quality, security and best practices support tailored reviews.

Pros: Local Ollama reviews can keep patches off the cloud, including in air-gapped environments.

Cons: The Free plan is limited to two daily credits, small pull requests and GitHub.com or GitLab.com.

Cons: Lite and Professional trials are described as both five days and seven or 14 days, depending on the page and billing term.

Cons: Cloud conversation data may be retained for up to 90 days, even though review diffs are discarded.

Alternatives

AI Code Review Tools is the broader category directory for comparing options. Consider CodeRabbit for a free plan that offers reviews forever for public repositories. Ironwood AI is a paid alternative with a 30-day evaluation for two developers and one active installation. Bito may suit teams comparing per-seat annual billing; its AI Code Reviews Team plan is listed at $12 a year, with billing described as $12 monthly per seat, billed annually.

Gitar has a free option for qualifying public GitHub or GitLab repositories with an OSI-approved license. LiveReview is another freemium option. CodeAnt AI offers a 14-day trial without a credit card, while Greptile has a free Starter plan with 50 monthly credits and one active developer. Sourcery offers a free Open Source plan for public repositories with AI reviews, PR summaries and diagrams, one-click fixes and custom review rules.

Verdict

Choose ThinkReview if your priority is project-tailored review feedback with human control over posting, especially if local models or several code hosts matter. Its local review path and flexible workflow are compelling, but the Free plan is narrow, paid usage remains credit-capped, and cloud conversation retention plus conflicting trial terms may push privacy-sensitive or high-volume teams toward another option.