Code Quality

A second pair of eyes on every pull request.

AI-assisted code reviews with project-specific rules, anchored directly in the repository. Works for agency deliveries too.

For teams without a senior reviewer, and for agency setups without a technical reviewer

Without a dedicated senior reviewer on the team, or a technical reviewer for the agency, pull requests often get merged unread. Nobody can assess them properly. The AI Review Gate is an additional, project-specific rule set in the repository. It doesn't replace human review on architecture decisions, but it catches patterns and rule violations before they reach production. In agency setups, I bring the agency in for a shared quality standard, not as a control mechanism against them. Every finding has to be addressed before merging. That's how thorough review stops being a good intention and becomes routine.

„For the price of two consulting days, every future code change gets reviewed against the project's own rules.“

Step 1

Assessment

I review the repository and the current review practice: what gets checked today, what slips through, which error classes keep repeating?

Step 2

Project-specific rules

Architecture conventions, known error patterns in the codebase, and security checks get defined — not generic linter copies.

Step 3

Integration into the PR pipeline

The AI review gets integrated into your PR pipeline with clear permissions and a hard cost cap.

Step 4

Calibration

Calibrated against historical pull requests until the false-positive rate is low enough that findings get taken seriously instead of dismissed.

Step 5

Onboarding & fine-tuning

Team onboarding on how to handle findings and what the gate explicitly doesn't replace. After two weeks, a findings review and rule fine-tuning follow.

What you get

  • AI review anchored in the repository on every pull request
  • Project-specific rules instead of generic linter copies
  • Cost and permission caps from day 1
  • Team onboarding and fine-tuning after two weeks
  • A choice between a frontier model (maximum review quality) and an EU-hosted model (your code never leaves the EU), with transparent cost and data-flow terms

The gate finds patterns and rule violations, it doesn't replace an architect. Human review on architecture decisions stays in place.

Why not just subscribe to GitHub Copilot?

Because the tool isn't the product. A generic subscription gives you a generic review. What you're paying for here is the project-specific rules, calibration to your codebase, and the fixed anchor in the pull-request process. That's what gets findings taken seriously instead of dismissed. The gate is tool-agnostic: where Copilot is already running, I build on top of it. For compliance cases, there's also the EU-hosted model option, which Copilot doesn't offer.

The details

Setup
€2,490 excl. VAT, fixed price. Rules, integration, calibration, fine-tuning after 2 weeks
Care Plan
optional €390/month excl. VAT, cancellable monthly. Rule maintenance, findings triage, model updates
Time investment
1–2 days of setup
Model choice
A frontier model for maximum quality, or an EU-hosted model if your code can't leave the EU. I'm transparent about the quality trade-off.
What I need
Access to the repository, a point of contact on the team, and for agency setups, a willingness to involve the agency.
Booking
Book a slot online — the first appointment is also the project start. You book the setup; the Care Plan can be added afterward, optionally. A formal proposal is available in advance on request; payment by invoice.
Book the kickoff slot

Not sure it's a fit? Start with a free 15-minute call: Book an intro call ↗