Does this replace human reviewers?

No. Agents give every merge request a first review. A person still approves what merges, with the findings in front of them.

Will it flood us with comments?

No. You set what counts as a finding. Style issues your linters already cover stay out, and each finding has to show its evidence.

Does our code leave our environment?

Access is scoped to the repositories you connect, and you can run agents in your own account. Talk to us about the setup your security team needs.

Which languages does it cover?

Review works on the languages your services are written in. Start with one repository and check the findings against your own reviewers.

AWS Partner

SOC 2 Reports

Frontier Investigationfor Code Review

Every merge request reviewed for logic, security and performance before a person reads it.

Every merge request gets a first review the moment it opens. Agents read the diff with the rest of the codebase, the ticket and the service it touches, and leave comments with evidence and a suggested change. Style nits stay out. Your reviewers start from the findings that matter, not from line one.

Book a Demo See how it works

GitLab merge request3 findings

!2318 Add partial refunds to payments-service

Scope: 14 files, 612 lines, touches RefundService and the ledger
Logic: Refund can exceed the captured amount on retries
Security: Refund endpoint skips the merchant ownership check
Evidence: Call path, failing test case, related ticket PAY-904
Suggestion: Idempotency key plus an amount guard. Patch attached

Reviewed in 2m 50s. Waiting for the author

[The work behind every merge request]

Code ships faster than ever.Review is where it waits.

01The manual work

Review

A merge request is only the start. A senior engineer still reads every line, traces the call path and guesses what the change breaks.

02The agent handoff

Findings ready

Frontier agents review the diff in context, test their own claims against the code and post findings with a suggested change.

03Your engineers’ role

Decide

Set the review rules once. Read the findings, accept or reject the suggestions, and approve what merges.

[Where CloudThinker fits]

Your stack stays.Agents work inside it.

01Changes

Where code lands

GitHubPull requests
GitLabMerge requests
BitbucketPull requests
Azure DevOpsRepos and pull requests

No change to your workflow

02Context

Your system of record

JiraThe issue behind the change
SonarQubeQuality gate results
SentryErrors in the code paths touched
SemgrepRules your team already wrote

Standards stay yours

03Review

CloudThinker

Read the changeDiff, issue and the code around it
Check the logicBusiness rules and edge cases
Check the riskSecurity and performance issues
Prove itEach comment points to the line and the reason

Comments, never merges

04Response

Reviews, not noise

GitHubReview comments on the lines
GitLabThreads on the merge request
SlackSummary to the reviewer
JiraFollow-up for larger issues

Humans approve the merge

Logos show common stacks. CloudThinker connects to each one through read-only access you approve.

[Example scenario]

Thursday, 16:40. A refund feature is due.The only payments reviewer is in a meeting.

A 60-engineer fintech team on GitLab and EKS. 40 merge requests a day, two senior reviewers for the payments domain, a release train every Friday.

16:40
Merge request opensSignal
!2318 adds partial refunds: 14 files, 612 lines, across RefundService, the ledger and a new endpoint.
16:41
Agent reads it in contextAgent
Pulls the ticket PAY-904, the callers of RefundService, the ledger schema and the last incidents on this service.
16:43
Two real findingsAgent
A retry can refund more than was captured. The new endpoint skips the merchant ownership check. Both shown with the call path.
16:43
A patch, with proofAgent
Posts a patch with an idempotency key and an amount guard, plus a failing test that proves the first bug.
17:05
Author applies the fixYour team
The author accepts both suggestions. The agent re-reviews the new commit and clears its findings.
17:20
Reviewer approves in 15 minutesYour team
The senior reviewer reads two findings and a clean diff instead of 612 raw lines, and approves before the train.

!2318 Add partial refunds4 messages

CloudThinker16:43
High: RefundService.refund() can exceed captured_amount when the provider retries (no idempotency key). Failing test added: test_refund_retry_overflow.
CloudThinker16:43
High: POST /refunds does not check merchant ownership of the payment. Any merchant token can refund any payment id.
Author17:05
Good catches. Applied both. Pushed a6f91c2.
CloudThinker17:07
Re-reviewed a6f91c2. Both findings resolved, new test passes. No further issues.

from open to first review: 3 min
bugs caught before a person read the diff: 2
of senior reviewer time, not an hour: 15 min

An illustrative example. Team, systems and times are representative, not a specific customer.

[Frontier investigation agents]

Every merge request gets a first review.Your reviewers get the findings.

Agents review in context of the whole service, so findings come with a call path and a test, and your reviewers spend their time on design, not line one.

Find logic bugs: Edge cases, retries, race conditions and broken assumptions, traced through the callers the diff touches.
Catch security issues: Missing auth checks, injection paths and leaked secrets flagged where they enter the code.
Spot performance risks: N+1 queries, unbounded loops and heavy calls on hot paths, before they reach production.
Suggest the change: Each finding comes with a patch or a failing test, ready for the author to apply.

[What changes]

Same team. Same tools.Far less of the work by hand.

Moment	Today	With frontier agents
First review	When a senior engineer is free	Minutes after the merge request opens
What reviewers read	Every line of the diff	The findings, with call paths and tests
Security review	A separate queue, often skipped	Part of every review
Feedback to the author	Comments to interpret	Suggested changes ready to apply
Review standards	Vary by reviewer	The same rules on every merge request

[Integrations]

Connects to the rest of your stack.Read-only to start.

GitHub
GitLab
Bitbucket
Azure DevOps
Jira
Slack
SonarQube
Semgrep
Snyk
Sentry

[Adoption path]

One pilot.Then company-wide.

The rollout follows the four phases of the AWS Cloud Adoption Framework, so it fits the plan your cloud team already runs.

01Envision
Start on one repository
Turn on review for one busy repository in comment-only mode. Compare the findings with what your reviewers caught.
02Align
Write the review rules
Agree what counts as blocking, which paths need a human expert, and what style issues to ignore.
03Launch
Roll out team by team
Add each team’s repositories with the same rules, so every merge request gets the same first review.
04Scale
Make it the default
New repositories start with review on. Repeat findings feed coding standards and onboarding.

[Customer proof]

FPT Cloud.Results on the record.

FPT Cloud put CloudThinker AI Code Review on live merge requests and caught the defects observable in the code, security findings included, before human review or QC.

Read the case study

precision on production merge requests: ~97%
backend logic coverage: Full

[AWS guidance]

Built the way AWS says to run it.Reviews start from a known reference.

[Trust and control]

Agents do the work.Your team keeps control.

You approve every change: Agents propose. Nothing touches production until someone on your team says yes, and you set that rule per system.
Every action on the record: Each step is logged, attributed and reversible, ready for your auditors.
Certified for enterprise: SOC 2 Type II and ISO 42001, with reports in our trust center.
Runs where you need it: In our cloud, through AWS Marketplace, or inside your own account.

[Questions]

What teams askbefore they start.

Does this replace human reviewers?: No. Agents give every merge request a first review. A person still approves what merges, with the findings in front of them.
Will it flood us with comments?: No. You set what counts as a finding. Style issues your linters already cover stay out, and each finding has to show its evidence.
Does our code leave our environment?: Access is scoped to the repositories you connect, and you can run agents in your own account. Talk to us about the setup your security team needs.
Which languages does it cover?: Review works on the languages your services are written in. Start with one repository and check the findings against your own reviewers.

[Go deeper]