CodeRabbit + auditdude
CodeRabbit makes your pull requests better, and you should keep it. But a review reads the diff, and a diff is forty lines of an app that's forty thousand. auditdude reads the whole thing on every push, looking for one kind of problem: the kind that gets you breached.
No credit card · read-only access · keep your reviewer
Keep your reviewer
CodeRabbit gives every pull request a second pair of eyes: a walkthrough of what changed, the nil check a tired human skims past, the naming note nobody else has time to write. That's a real job and it does it well. None of this page argues with that.
The gap
The vulnerability is usually somewhere else: in the controller nobody has touched since March, or in how the new route interacts with an old scope. No diff contains that. You find it by reading the application as a whole, and a review was never meant to do that.
What a PR review reads
+38 −12 · 4 files
What an attacker reads
every deployed line
auditdude reads at the attacker's scale: the full repo on every push, with the history of what it already found.
| Job | CodeRabbit | auditdude |
|---|---|---|
| Bugs visible in the changed lines | ||
| PR summaries, style & naming feedback | — | |
| Vulnerabilities in code the PR didn't touch | ||
| Authorization & tenant checks across the app | ||
| Findings tracked over time, regressions flagged | ||
| Only verified, exploitable findings |
One improves the code you're merging. One audits the code you've already merged.
Why it matters
A review is a conversation, and once the PR merges it's history. Security doesn't work like that. A finding stays open until someone fixes it, and a fixed one can come back three refactors later.
auditdude keeps that ledger. Ignored stays ignored, fixed-and-returned gets flagged as a regression, and the dashboard always shows what's still exploitable right now.
CodeRabbit's lane
Better code in every PR
Readability, correctness, style. The diff, made stronger before it merges.
auditdude's lane
Nothing exploitable in production
Every finding verified, tracked, and reopened if it ever comes back.
Better together
There's no overlap to pay twice for. CodeRabbit reviews what's changing, auditdude audits what's deployed, and the two never step on each other.
Reviews every PR for quality: logic slips, style, missing tests. Your codebase gets better with every merge. Keep it on.
Reads the whole repo with Claude on every push, hunting only for what an attacker could use. Opens the fix as a PR.
Closing the gap
Connect a repo with read-only access. From then on it runs where you already work.
auditdude reads your source with Claude on every push and pull request, not once a year before an audit.
Each verified finding lands as an inline comment on the vulnerable line in your PR, with the severity and the fix.
Review, run your tests, merge. If the bug ever comes back, it's flagged as a regression.
FAQ
It flags security-looking issues when they're visible in the changed lines, the way any good reviewer would. What it doesn't do is audit the application: code outside the diff is out of scope, findings aren't verified for exploitability, and nothing tracks whether an old issue ever came back. Review and audit are different jobs.
Yes, they don't collide. CodeRabbit comments on quality in the lines you changed. auditdude comments only when it has a verified security finding, and it also watches all the code you didn't change. Your PRs get two kinds of comments, each worth reading.
Scope and state. A review reads the diff and ends when the PR merges. An audit reads the entire application, every time, and keeps a ledger: open findings, ignored ones, regressions. auditdude is the audit, running on every push instead of once a year.
No. CodeRabbit prices per developer. auditdude is $30 per repository per month, flat: unlimited scans, unlimited developers, fix PRs included. Your tenth hire costs the same as your first, which is nothing.
Get started
Connect a repo and read your first findings ten minutes from now. No credit card, read-only access, revoke anytime.