Autter
Summary
Code that looks correct in review still breaks in production — not because it was wrong, but because nobody tested the edge case nobody thought to write. Autter runs your code, traces logic paths, and hunts those gaps before they reach merge.
Autter sits in your GitHub PR workflow and does more than read the diff — the vendor describes an agentic review loop that executes code, runs scanners, and follows logic paths across files. It pulls context from a codegraph, linked Jira or Linear issues, MCP servers, and web queries, so reviews reflect your actual architecture rather than generic lint rules. Rules are defined in plain English, and the tool learns from how your team reviews over time. The agentic layer adds depth, but it also adds latency — teams with tight merge windows will feel the difference versus a static analyzer that returns in seconds.
Bottom line: Autter earns its place on teams shipping AI-assisted code fast enough that human reviewers miss edge cases — but if your pipeline needs sub-minute feedback or your stack lives outside GitHub, the fit breaks down quickly.
Pricing Plans
Usage-BasedLast verified 2 weeks ago- Price
- $39/mo
- Free Tier
- 20 PRs per month
Harbour
Free up to 20 PRs
- 20 PRs included
- Overage at $1.50/PR
- Unlimited repos
- AI code review
- Edge case & bug detection
- PR summary & diagrams
- Codebase intelligence
- 40+ linters & security scans
- Auto-fix suggestions
- 3 custom rules
- GitHub/GitLab integration
- VS Code extension
Port
Most popular - includes subscription and usage at 100 PRs/month
- 100 PRs included
- Overage at $0.90/PR
- Unlimited repos
- All Harbour features
- Unlimited custom rules
- Team learning / PR history
- Jira / Linear integration
- Slack notifications
- Full code quality analytics
- Standup / sprint reports
- Email + Chat support
- 48-hr SLA
Cargo
For high-frequency shippers - includes subscription and usage at 100 PRs/month
- 300 PRs included
- Overage at $0.65/PR
- Unlimited repos
- All Port features
- Priority review queue
- Multi-org / multi-workspace
- Full + Export code quality analytics
- PR velocity & team benchmarks
- Priority Chat support
- 24-hr SLA
Fleet
Custom / Enterprise - volume pricing, SLAs, SSO
- Custom PRs included
- Negotiated overage pricing
- Unlimited repos
- All Cargo features
- Audit logs
- SSO / SAML
- On-prem / self-hosted
- Dedicated CSM
- 4-hr SLA
View full pricing on autter.dev →
Pricing may have changed since last verified. Check the official site for current plans.
Community Performance Report Card
No community ratings yet. Be the first to rate this tool!
Community Benchmarks Community
Sign in to submit a benchmarkNo community benchmarks yet. Be the first to share a real-world data point.
Pros
Sign in to edit- Agentic review loop that executes code and traces logic paths across files, so edge cases that pass a human read — the kind that surface two weeks after merge — get flagged before they do.
- Plain-English rule definition with no regex or YAML, which means your coding standards actually get enforced consistently instead of living in a wiki nobody reads before opening a PR.
- Codegraph-based dependency analysis pulls in impact across the full codebase, so a change that looks isolated in the diff but breaks a downstream service gets caught at review time, not at deployment.
- External context from Jira, Linear, and web queries is woven into the review, which means the feedback reflects the ticket's intent and current library behavior rather than what the code looks like in isolation.
- Learns from how your team reviews over time, so institutional knowledge — the patterns your seniors catch by instinct — gets encoded and applied consistently across every PR, not just the ones they personally review.
Cons
Sign in to edit- The agentic loop runs code, calls tools, and reasons across multiple context sources — that takes time. Teams running more than a handful of PRs per hour will find review feedback arriving after engineers have already context-switched, which defeats the purpose of pre-merge review.
- GitHub is the only supported platform based on the vendor page. Teams on GitLab or Bitbucket cannot use this tool, and migrating version control to fit a code review tool is not a trade most engineering leads make — those teams go to a competitor with broader VCS support.
- No self-hosting option exists per available documentation. Organizations with data-residency policies or air-gapped environments are blocked from using the tool regardless of how well the feature set fits.
Community Reviews
Sign in to write a reviewNo reviews yet. Be the first to share your experience.
About
- Platforms
- GitHub, Jira, Linear, Slack, GitLab, VS Code
- API Available
- Yes
- Self-Hosted
- No
- Last Updated
- 2026-06-25T03:35:35.655Z
Best For
Who it's for
- GitHub-based development teams
- Teams using AI-assisted coding workflows
- Organizations needing customizable, context-aware reviews
- Projects requiring security scanning and vulnerability detection
What it does well
- Automated PR code reviews
- Catching edge cases and unhandled scenarios
- Enforcing team coding standards and security rules
- Generating PR summaries and architectural diagrams
- Creating automated standup and sprint reports
Integrations
Discussion Community
Sign in to commentNo discussion yet. Sign in to start the conversation.
Compare Autter
Spotted incorrect or missing data? Join our community of contributors.
Sign Up to ContributeCommunity Notes & Tips Community
Sign in to contributeBe the first to contribute. General notes, observations, gotchas, and tips from people who use this tool day-to-day.
Frequently Asked Questions
- Is Autter free?
- Autter has a permanent free tier alongside paid upgrades (paid plans from $39/mo). You can keep using a baseline version indefinitely without paying.
- Is Autter open source?
- Yes. Autter is open source.
- Does Autter have an API?
- Yes. Autter exposes a developer API. See the official documentation at https://autter.dev for details.
- What platforms does Autter support?
- Autter is available on: GitHub, Jira, Linear, Slack, GitLab, VS Code.
Hours Saved & ROI Stories Community
Sign in to contributeBe the first to contribute. Concrete time/cost savings, with context. e.g. "Cut my code review backlog from 4h to 45m per week."
Curated lists that include this category
Most code review tools read the diff and flag what looks wrong on the surface. Autter takes a different path: the vendor describes a multi-step review process where the tool runs code, traces logic paths, and uses 40+ linters and security scanners to surface bugs that survive a human read-through. The workflow connects to your PR on GitHub, analyzes dependencies across files via a codegraph, and delivers a summary with a walkthrough and architectural diagram alongside inline comments.
The differentiating claim is context depth. Where most tools treat each PR in isolation, Autter pulls in external signals — linked issues from Jira or Linear, live web queries for up-to-date library information, and MCP server data — so the review reflects what the change actually touches rather than what the diff shows. Rules are written in plain English rather than regex or YAML, and the system watches how your team responds to suggestions over time, building a picture of your conventions without requiring manual configuration updates.
This depth comes with trade-offs. The agentic review loop — executing code, calling tools, reasoning across context sources — takes longer than a static pass. Teams with high PR volume or strict SLA on feedback time will hit friction. The tool is GitHub-only based on available documentation, so teams on GitLab or Bitbucket are blocked entirely. Self-hosting is not available, which rules out organizations with hard data-residency requirements. Automated standup and sprint reports are a useful side output, but teams with existing reporting pipelines will need to evaluate whether the format matches what their process expects.
Autter integrates with GitHub at the PR level and supports configuration via a config file for coding guidelines and workflow rules. The open-source plan exists per the vendor FAQ, though advanced features are paid-only. The Capt. Patch chat interface offers a conversational entry point for scoping fit before committing to integration.