Open Code Review: inspect review scope, filters and model work
What Open Code Review sends to a model
Understand the review CLI, the difference between selection and execution, and a small evaluation task before granting access to a repository.
What you will learn
- Start with the change you want reviewed
- Separate preparation from model reasoning
- Evaluate comments against known defects
Before you start
- Git changes and merge-base comparisons
- Basic CLI use and model API credentials
Choose a review scope, explain exclusions, prepare a controlled pilot and distinguish source inspection from runtime evidence.
Key takeaways
- Review mode determines the input change.
- Delegation uses the host agent’s model access.
- A useful evaluation records both missed defects and false alarms.
Start with the change you want reviewed
Open Code Review reads Git changes, prepares a review scope and uses a model to produce comments tied to files and lines. The agent can request more context from the repository. A useful first question is which change should be reviewed and which files the reviewer may read.
The default workspace mode includes staged, unstaged and untracked changes. Commit mode targets one commit. Range mode compares the merge base of two references with the target reference. These choices can produce different inputs even when the working directory looks unchanged.
Separate preparation from model reasoning
In normal operation OCR manages its configured model connection. Delegation mode prepares file selection and review rules for a host coding agent, which performs the reasoning using its own model access. Delegation therefore changes where the model work happens and which account pays for it.
The project is published under Apache-2.0, according to its README. That license applies to the project; it does not provide model credentials, authorize uploading private code or make a provider subscription unlimited. Decide these conditions before reviewing company material.
Evaluate comments against known defects
Use a disposable repository with a small, intentional bug and a nearby harmless change. Save the selected files, generated findings and the human decision on each finding. This distinguishes a missed file from a selected file where the model did not identify the bug.
Our source review uses commit 189be5b. Fifteen isolated Go cases exercised the .env-name helper with the caller’s lowercase conversion. We did not run the complete CLI or a live model, so these tests establish a narrow path-classification behavior rather than review accuracy.
Decision guide
| Criterion | Option A | Option B |
|---|---|---|
| Best when | You need predictable behavior and easy auditing | You need adaptive optimization and have reliable telemetry |
| Main risk | May leave performance on the table | Can become difficult to explain or debug |
Implementation steps
- 1
Create a disposable repository without credentials or private data.
- 2
Choose workspace, commit or range mode and record why it matches the task.
- 3
Record selected files and judge each reported defect against the change.
Copy-ready example
ocr delegate preview
ocr delegate rule src/example.goFrequently asked questions
Does installing OCR include a model?
No. Configure a model provider for normal review, or use delegation with a host agent that already has model access.
Does an empty comment list prove the change is safe?
No. Check selection, execution outcomes and the limitations of the review before interpreting an empty result.
Sources
- Open Code Review / README.mdSource checked 2026-09-18
- Open Code Review / pages/src/content/docs/en/integrations/delegate.mdSource checked 2026-09-18
- Open Code Review / internal/agent/selection.goSource checked 2026-09-18