Greptile builds codebase context and uses it to review changes. Its purpose is to help identify consequences beyond the modified lines and give developers specific findings.

Official Greptile page: AI code reviews with repository context. Open the source

Links between files

A small diff can break a contract in another module. Greptile describes a graph index of files, functions, and dependencies used during pull request review. The agent analyzes changes in a broader context and leaves comments suggesting fixes.

This helps projects where multiple components call the same function. An index does not replace a specification or guarantee knowledge of external consumers. If another service uses the contract, supply a verifiable description and ensure its source is included in context. Otherwise, a confident finding may consider only part of the system.

Tailor reviews to the team

Greptile supports rules and additional context, while feedback on comments helps tune the relevance of its findings. Teams should decide in advance which risks actually block a change and which concerns are stylistic. Otherwise, automation merely adds to the discussion queue.

For example, specify that the public API must remain compatible, while internal renaming needs no separate finding if behavior stays unchanged. Review rules alongside the architecture. An outdated exception the agent keeps repeating can create more noise than value.

Example: change the null check

A developer replaces an explicit missing-value check with a truthiness condition. Ask the reviewer to inspect calls with zero, an empty string, and a missing value. The expected finding should show where these cases have different meanings and what incorrect action the new branch causes.

Then open the calling code and reproduce the problematic input. If the contract never permits zero, the finding may be unnecessary; if it does, check behavior before and after the fix. A button that passes a finding to an agent speeds up context transfer but does not establish that the proposed code is safe to apply unread.

Cost and Deployment

The current page offers Starter with a limited free quota for one developer, paid credit-based usage, and enterprise options. Eligible open-source projects have separate programs. Compare review scope and limits against actual change sizes: different review levels consume different resources.

Enterprise self-hosting is described separately from the cloud service. It requires an agreed environment and model connection; a standard account does not become local. Greptile also offers CLI and MCP, but these alone do not establish a universal public REST API. The catalog leaves programmatic access unspecified until the relevant interface and its terms are established.

When reviewing again, make sure findings refer to the branch’s latest state. A fixed file and an old comment may appear contradictory. When passing context to another agent, retain the line number, code fragment, and revision where the issue was found.

Suitable tasks

Check the impact of PR on neighboring modules
Configure team code review rules
Send comments to the agent for correction
Evaluate self-hosting for an organization

Features

Strengths

Graph-based repository context
Feedback and Review Rules
A free starting quota and enterprise deployment

Things to consider

Limitations

The index does not replace the external contract and requirements
Different review levels consume different resources
CLI/MCP support is not treated as a confirmed universal API

Selection and conditions

Free access: Yes
Trial period: Yes
No sign-up required: No
Russian interface: Not confirmed
Local installation: Not confirmed
API: Not confirmed

“Not confirmed” means there is not enough information. The feature may still be available; check the developer’s terms.

Input formats: Text, Code
Result: Text, Code

Terms

Starter is limited by developer count and a monthly quota; trial and OSS programs have separate terms. Self-hosted Enterprise does not mean a standard cloud plan runs locally.

From task to first result

Practical example

Task: Check the impact of PR on neighboring modules
What to prepare: A Pull request replaces a missing-value check with a truthiness check. The diff, function contract, and examples using 0, an empty string, and null are provided.

Task brief or prompt

Check the change against the original contract. Find cases where the new validation alters the meaning of valid input. For each finding, provide a diff fragment, a reproducible example, and its consequence. If the contract forbids an input, do not call its handling defective. Propose a minimal fix only for a confirmed problem.

Expected result

Pull request findings with specific failure conditions and proposed fixes; this is an educational task, rather than a completed review.

How to check the result

Open the specified lines and related calls in the current version of the branch.
Reproduce the finding with a test and distinguish a contract violation from a style preference.

An editorial teaching example of a task brief, not the result of hands-on testing of the service. Check that the required mode is available, that you have rights to the source material and that the intended use of the result is permitted.

Check details

Official sources

This description is based on the developer’s material. Features, prices and availability may change; check the primary source before use.

Greptile.