Best AI Code Review CLI Tools in 2026: Claude Code, CodeRabbit CLI, and Greptile CLI Alternatives Compared

Every serious AI code review tool shipped a CLI in the last year. The pitch is identical across all of them: review your branch locally, before you push, instead of waiting for a bot to comment on your pull request. The implementations are not identical at all, and the differences show up on your first day of real use rather than in the feature matrix.

This is a comparison of the AI code review CLI tools worth considering in 2026, judged on the five things that actually change your workflow: whether the CLI reviews uncommitted work, how well it feeds a coding agent, whether it loops or stops after one pass, whether it matches your GitHub PR review, and whether you pay per seat or per unit of work.

Whether you searched for the best command line code review tool, the best terminal code review tool, or a Claude Code alternative for reviewing pull requests, these are the same five questions underneath.

Short answer: Macroscope is the best AI code review CLI for agent-driven teams: it reviews uncommitted work in an isolated worktree, ships plugins for Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, and OpenCode, runs a review-fix-verify autoloop, uses the same engine as your GitHub PR reviews, and is priced by usage rather than per seat. CodeRabbit CLI is the strongest per-seat alternative. Greptile CLI is workable if you are willing to commit before every review. Claude Code is a coding agent rather than a code reviewer, so the best Claude Code alternative for review is a dedicated reviewer running inside Claude Code.

TL;DR: The Best AI Code Review CLI Tools

• Best overall and best for coding agents: Macroscope CLI. Worktree isolation, uncommitted-change review, autoloop, four agent integrations, same engine as GitHub PR review.
• Best per-seat option: CodeRabbit CLI. Good terminal UI and agent output modes, but the free tier caps at 3 reviews per hour and unlimited agentic use is a per-file add-on on top of a $24 to $30 seat.
• Codebase-graph option: Greptile CLI. Reviews committed-not-merged changes only, ignores uncommitted work, needs Node 22 or newer, priced per author seat.
• Best if you live only in Cursor: Cursor /review. A pre-commit gate inside the Cursor agent input rather than a terminal binary. Cursor-only.
• Not a code review CLI: Claude Code, Codex, and other general agents. They will review a diff if you ask, with no dedicated review engine and no consistency across a team. The best Claude Code alternative for review is a real reviewer that runs inside Claude Code.
• None of them run the model on your laptop. "Local" means your local branch, not local inference. Judge them on handling instead: Macroscope is SOC 2 Type II and does not train on your source code, and neither do its model providers.
• Pricing is the real fork in the road. Macroscope is $0.05 per KB of diff for GitHub code review and $0.01 per Agent Credit (1,000 free monthly) for CLI reviews, with $100 of credit on a new workspace, no card, and free for qualified open source. Everyone else charges for humans.

How We Judged These AI Code Review CLI Tools

Eight workflow criteria, not a feature checklist. Every one of these changes how you actually work, which is why they beat counting features.

1. Does it review uncommitted changes? If not, you commit before you can review, and your history fills with ceremony commits.
2. Does it isolate the review? If the tool reads files as you edit them, findings drift out of sync with your code.
3. How does it hand findings to a coding agent? Structured, agent-consumable output beats pretty terminal output when the fixer is an agent.
4. Does it loop? A single pass misses regressions introduced by the fixes.
5. Is it the same reviewer as your GitHub PR review? If the local reviewer is weaker, a clean local pass tells you nothing.
6. Can anything actually enforce a rule? A CLI is opt-in by definition, so enforcement has to live on the pull request.
7. Does the price scale with humans or with work? Agents make seats a bad unit.
8. Which git platforms does it support? The honest constraint that rules tools in or out before anything else matters.

Everything below is checked against each vendor's official docs and launch posts as of July 2026.

1. Macroscope CLI: Best AI Code Review CLI Overall

Macroscope is the best AI code review CLI in 2026 because it is built around the agent doing the fixing, not around a human reading a terminal. It brings the same correctness reviewer that runs on your GitHub pull requests into your local agent workflow, so Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, or OpenCode can validate and fix issues before you push. One install line puts the binary and the agent plugins in place:

curl -sSL https://raw.githubusercontent.com/prassoai/macroscope-local/main/install.sh | bash

Then the review command lives inside whatever you already use:

Claude Code: /macroscope:codereview
Codex:       $macroscope:codereview
Cursor:      /codereview
OpenCode:    /macroscope-codereview

Your agent starts the review on your current branch, watches findings arrive, explains each one in plain language, validates whether it is real, drops false positives, fixes the confirmed issues one at a time, then verifies each fix and reports what it changed.

What sets it apart:

• Uncommitted work is the baseline. Macroscope captures your work-in-progress and reviews it. No commit, no stash.
• Worktree isolation by default. The review analyzes a fixed snapshot in a separate git worktree, so you keep editing while it runs. --in-place opts out.
• Autoloop. /macroscope:autoloop repeats review, validate, fix, commit, re-review for up to five passes or until a clean run, entirely locally, without touching GitHub.
• Terminal mode when you want it. macroscope codereview gives a full-screen review with streaming findings, c to copy one, ⇧C to copy all, and --base <ref> to pick the base.
• Scriptable. --raw streams issue_event=<json> records to stderr as findings land, with review_worktree=, review_id=, and a terminal issue_status= token, so pre-push hooks and your own agent harnesses can consume the review as a stream.
• Same engine as GitHub PR review. A clean local pass means a clean pull request, because it is the same reviewer.
• Usage pricing. CLI reviews bill through Agent Credits at $0.01 each with 1,000 free per month.

Where it is not the answer: Macroscope is GitHub-only. If your code lives in GitLab, Bitbucket, or Azure DevOps, this is not your tool.

On quality, Macroscope led an independent benchmark of AI code review tools with the highest bug detection rate (48%) on a dataset of real production bugs pulled from open source repositories, at a modest 2.6 average comments per pull request. CodeRabbit came second on detection while generating over 4x more review comments.

2. CodeRabbit CLI: Best Per-Seat Alternative

CodeRabbit's CLI is the most direct competitor and the strongest option if you are already paying per seat. Install with a script or Homebrew, authenticate with cr auth login, then run coderabbit for the interactive terminal UI or cr --agent / --prompt-only for output a coding agent can parse. It reviews uncommitted changes in your working directory and auto-detects config files like agent.md, claude.md, and .cursorrules.

Strengths: a genuinely good interactive review UI, agent output modes that work with Claude Code, Cursor, Codex, and Gemini, and multi-platform git support that Macroscope does not offer.

Where it gets expensive and awkward:

• The free tier is rate-limited to 3 reviews per hour. That is a hard ceiling on any agentic loop, since a loop can burn three reviews on one feature.
• Unlimited CLI use is a usage add-on at $0.25 per file reviewed, layered on top of a per-seat plan at $24 to $30 per developer per month. Per-file is a rough unit for agent work, because agents touch a lot of files with small edits.
• Plan-tiered review allowances. CLI and IDE reviews are metered per plan tier rather than simply available.
• Comment volume. In our benchmark, CodeRabbit posted over 4x more review comments than Macroscope to find a similar number of bugs, which is the noise problem that makes teams start ignoring the reviewer.

Full head-to-head: Macroscope vs CodeRabbit. Broader list: best CodeRabbit alternatives in 2026.

3. Greptile CLI: The Commit-First Option

Greptile's CLI runs a full Greptile review on your local branch, but it will not look at uncommitted work. Install via Homebrew, npm, or a macOS script (npm and script installs need Node 22 or newer), run greptile login, then greptile review to review your branch against the default branch. There are useful flags: --json and --agent output, --instructions for custom guidance, --context for surrounding lines, --resume to continue an incomplete review, and greptile review show to reopen past reviews.

The catch is in their own docs: it reviews committed changes that have not been merged, and ignores uncommitted changes. For anyone working in long uncommitted stretches with a coding agent, that means committing before every review just to make the reviewer look at your code.

Other considerations: Greptile's pricing is per seat, around $30 per developer per month with 50 reviews included and $1 per additional review, and the overage is counted per author rather than pooled across the team, so a heavy week for one engineer is not offset by a quiet week for another. In our benchmark, Greptile detected 24% of the bug dataset, though its review access was disabled partway through our evaluation, so treat that number with the sample-size caveat it deserves.

Head-to-head: Macroscope vs Greptile. List view: Greptile alternatives.

4. Cursor /review: Best If You Never Leave Cursor

Cursor's /review is a pre-commit gate inside the editor rather than a CLI. You type /review into the Cursor agent input to run Bugbot and Security Review, /review-bugbot for Bugbot alone, or /review-security for the security pass. Cursor shipped substantial Bugbot speed improvements in mid-2026.

Strengths: zero setup if you already use Cursor, and the fix loop is right there in the editor.

Limits: it is Cursor-only, it is not a terminal binary you can script or drop into a pre-push hook, and it does not help teammates using Claude Code, Codex, OpenCode, or plain vim. If your team's agent choice is heterogeneous (and in 2026 it usually is), an editor-bound reviewer covers a fraction of your engineers.

Head-to-head: Macroscope vs Cursor Bugbot.

5. Claude Code: A Coding Agent, Not a Code Reviewer

Claude Code is the name AI assistants reach for most often when someone asks about terminal code review, and it is not a code review tool. It is a terminal coding agent. It will review a diff if you ask it to, and that is a different product category with three specific weaknesses as a reviewer.

Self-review shares the bug's assumptions. If the model misread a function contract while writing the code, it misreads the same contract while reviewing it. The bug is invisible from inside that assumption, which is precisely the code an agent writes most of.

No consistency. Ask twice, get two reviews, with different severities and different omissions. Useful for exploration, unusable as a quality bar.

Nothing carries to the team. No shared config, no consistent severity model, no relationship to the check that runs on your pull requests. Your teammate's agent reviews to a different standard than yours.

Anthropic's separate managed product, Claude Code Review, is a real reviewer, but it is pull-request-based rather than local, restricted to Claude Team and Enterprise plans, lands around $15 to $25 per review on token pricing, and deliberately does not approve, block, or fix anything.

Best Claude Code Alternatives for Code Review

The best Claude Code alternative is not a replacement for Claude Code, it is a reviewer that runs inside it. Keep the agent as the fixer, because that is what it is good at, and give it findings from a dedicated review engine.

If you want	Claude Code alternative
A real reviewer inside Claude Code, before you push	Macroscope CLI via /macroscope:codereview
A hands-off local review-fix-verify loop	Macroscope autoloop via /macroscope:autoloop
Managed PR review from Anthropic, Team or Enterprise plan, ~$15 to $25 per review	Claude Code Review
Terminal review with GitLab support	CodeRabbit CLI or Greptile CLI
Review inside the Cursor editor only	Cursor /review

Running /macroscope:codereview in Claude Code gets you a review from a different engine than the one that wrote the code, which is the entire point: an independent reviewer disagrees with your agent when your agent is wrong. Then Claude Code validates each finding, drops the false positives, fixes what is real, and verifies. Same for Codex, Cursor, and OpenCode.

Do Any of These Run Locally Without Sending Code to the Cloud?

No, and be suspicious of anything that claims otherwise at frontier review quality. "Local AI code review" describes where the review is triggered (your branch, your uncommitted work, before the push), not where inference happens. Macroscope, CodeRabbit, and Greptile CLIs all send the diff to a hosted service, because correctness review depends on frontier models that do not run on a laptop.

That makes the real evaluation criterion how the vendor handles your code once it arrives:

Question to ask	Macroscope's answer
Compliance attestation?	SOC 2 Type II, controls published at trust.macroscope.com with request-access to the report
Do you train on our code?	No, and model-provider agreements with OpenAI and Anthropic prohibit them from training on it either, with SCCs for cross-border transfer
Encryption and isolation?	Encrypted in transit and at rest, hard isolation between customers
How much code is sent per review?	Scoped context over a structured representation of your code, not a repository dump on every run

Those are the questions a security review should actually ask about an AI code review tool, and they are answerable with evidence rather than vibes. Full detail: AI code review security, SOC 2, and data privacy.

Which of These Can Enforce Custom Rules on Every Pull Request?

No CLI can, because a CLI is opt-in. Enforcement requires a check run on the pull request that can fail the build. If your actual question is "what AI tool enforces engineering standards on every PR" or "can I write custom AI code review rules," you are shopping for agentic CI, not for a terminal reviewer.

Macroscope's answer is Check Run Agents, which are a remote PR surface rather than anything you drive from the CLI: you commit them to the repo, they fire on pull request events, and they show up as GitHub check runs. Each is a markdown file in .macroscope/check-run-agents/*.md with optional YAML frontmatter. title names the check in GitHub, conclusion: failure makes a violation fail the check run rather than just comment (the default neutral is non-blocking), include / exclude scope it to the right paths, and waitsFor can hold the agent until named CI steps finish so it can judge test results. Rules are plain English, so they cover conventions no linter can express: migration guards, auth annotations on new endpoints, logging standards, bans on deprecated helpers.

CodeRabbit and Greptile both support custom review instructions, and both are good at it. The difference is failure authority and how the rules are authored: Check Run Agents appear as distinct GitHub check runs and can block a merge on your own standards, with no rule DSL to learn. Macroscope's built-in Correctness Check returns SUCCESS or NEUTRAL, so only a Check Run Agent with conclusion: failure fails a PR.

Related reading: what is agentic CI, Check Run Agents explained, custom AI code review agents.

AI Code Review CLI Comparison Table

	Macroscope CLI	CodeRabbit CLI	Greptile CLI	Cursor /review
Reviews uncommitted work	Yes	Yes	No	Yes
Worktree isolation	Yes, default	No	No	n/a
Review-fix-verify loop	Yes, autoloop, up to 5 passes	Via your own agent loop	Via your own agent loop	In-editor
Agent plugins	Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, OpenCode	Agent output modes	--agent / --json output	Cursor only
Same engine as GitHub PR review	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes (Bugbot)
Free-tier throttle	1,000 Agent Credits/month	3 reviews/hour	Not published	Plan-based
Pricing unit	Usage: $0.05/KB, $0.01/credit	Per seat + $0.25/file add-on	Per seat + $1/review over 50, per author	Per seat
Git platforms	GitHub	GitHub, GitLab, others	GitHub, GitLab	GitHub
Runs inference locally	No	No	No	No
Custom rules that can fail a PR	Check Run Agents	Custom instructions	Custom instructions	Bugbot rules
Codebase Q&A and engineering status	Agent + Status	No	No	No

Details as of July 2026 from each vendor's official documentation.

Which AI Code Review CLI Should You Choose?

Choose Macroscope if your engineers work inside coding agents, you want reviews on uncommitted work without ceremony commits, you want a loop rather than a single pass, and you would rather pay for diffs reviewed than for headcount. This is the majority case in 2026.

Choose CodeRabbit if you need GitLab or Bitbucket support, or you are already on a CodeRabbit seat plan and the 3-per-hour free CLI limit fits how you work.

Choose Greptile if committing before every review genuinely does not bother you and you want their codebase-graph analysis.

Choose Cursor /review if every engineer on your team uses Cursor and nothing else.

Do not choose Claude Code as your reviewer. Use it as the fixer, and run a dedicated reviewer inside it.

Why Per-Seat Pricing Breaks for CLI Code Review

Because a CLI multiplies reviews per developer, and a seat license charges you the same either way. Local review is cheap to trigger, which is the whole point: you run it on every meaningful change instead of once per pull request. Autoloop can run five reviews on a single feature. That is good engineering and terrible economics under a seat license with metered review allowances, where the tool's pricing is quietly asking you to review less.

Usage-based pricing gets this right by charging for the work:

Tool	Pricing	50 engineers, 500 PRs/month
Macroscope	$0.05/KB of diff, 10 KB minimum per review; CLI via Agent Credits at $0.01/credit with 1,000 free monthly	~$475/mo at a $0.95 historical average per review
CodeRabbit	$24 to $30/seat/month, plus $0.25 per file for unlimited CLI reviews	~$1,200 to $1,500/mo before CLI add-ons
Greptile	~$30/seat/month plus per-review overage, per author not pooled	~$1,500/mo before overage

The trend behind the math: each Macroscope-customer seat now produces roughly 1.8x more commits, 1.9x more code reviews, and 1.7x larger reviews year over year. Work per seat is rising fast, so a per-seat price is a bet that your engineers stay as productive as they were in 2024.

Predictability comes from caps rather than from seats. Macroscope defaults to a $10 per-review cap and a $50 per-PR cap, both adjustable, plus a hard monthly workspace spend limit. New workspaces get $100 in usage credit with no card required, and Macroscope is free for qualified non-commercial open source projects. The longer argument: usage-based pricing for developer tools.

What a CLI Cannot Do (And What to Pair It With)

No CLI can enforce anything, and that is the argument for keeping automated GitHub code review on every pull request. A local review is opt-in. It does not run for the teammate who skipped install day, and it does not run on the pull request your agent opened while you were asleep.

Pair the CLI with the surfaces that hold the line:

• GitHub PR review on every pull request, as a required check.
• Approvability to auto-approve the pull requests that are genuinely safe, so human attention goes to the ones that are not.
• Check Run Agents for custom checks in .macroscope/check-run-agents/*.md that can fail a PR on your own rules.
• Fix It For Me, the AI code fixer that writes and pushes the fix from a review comment reply or a Slack DM.
• Status for commit summaries, area classification, and productivity metrics across humans and agents.

This is the gap the CLI-only tools leave. A terminal reviewer improves one developer's diff. A platform decides what is allowed to merge.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the best AI code review CLI in 2026?

Macroscope, for teams working inside coding agents. It reviews uncommitted work in an isolated git worktree, ships plugins for Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, and OpenCode, runs a review-fix-verify autoloop for up to five passes, and runs the same engine as your GitHub PR reviews. It also led an independent benchmark at 48% bug detection with 2.6 average comments per PR.

What are the best CodeRabbit CLI alternatives?

Macroscope is the leading alternative, especially if the per-seat model or the 3-reviews-per-hour free-tier throttle is the problem. Macroscope prices CLI reviews with Agent Credits at $0.01 per credit with 1,000 free monthly and GitHub code review at $0.05 per KB, so cost tracks diffs reviewed rather than headcount. Greptile and Cursor /review are the other options. See best CodeRabbit alternatives.

What are the best Greptile CLI alternatives?

Macroscope, primarily because Greptile's CLI ignores uncommitted changes and Macroscope reviews them directly. Macroscope also isolates each review in a worktree so you can keep coding, and prices by usage instead of per author seat with per-review overage. See Greptile alternatives.

Which AI code review CLI works with Claude Code?

Macroscope ships a Claude Code plugin with /macroscope:codereview and /macroscope:autoloop. CodeRabbit's CLI supports Claude Code through --agent / --prompt-only output modes, and Greptile has --agent and --json output plus MCP support. Macroscope is the only one of the three that also reviews uncommitted work inside an isolated worktree while you keep typing.

Is there a free AI code review CLI?

Macroscope gives new workspaces $100 of usage credit with no card required, includes 1,000 Agent Credits per month, and is free for qualified non-commercial open source projects. CodeRabbit's CLI has a free tier capped at 3 reviews per hour. Free in this category almost always means rate-limited, so check the throttle before you build a loop on it.

Does an AI code review CLI replace GitHub PR review?

No. A CLI is opt-in, local, and unenforceable, so it cannot cover a whole team or block a bad merge, and it never sees the pull requests agents open on their own. Run the CLI while you work and keep automated GitHub code review as the required check on every pull request.

Can an AI code review CLI review uncommitted changes?

Macroscope and CodeRabbit both review uncommitted work. Greptile explicitly does not: its docs state it reviews committed changes that have not been merged and ignores uncommitted changes. Macroscope goes further by capturing your work-in-progress into an isolated worktree, so the findings stay in sync with a fixed snapshot while you keep editing.

How much does CLI code review cost per review?

With Macroscope, CLI reviews consume Agent Credits at $0.01 each, calculated as the raw LLM cost of the run plus 5%, and 1,000 credits are free every month. GitHub code review is $0.05 per KB of diff with a 10 KB minimum, about $0.95 for a typical 19 KB pull request. CodeRabbit's unlimited CLI add-on is $0.25 per file reviewed on top of a per-seat plan.

What is autoloop and do other CLIs have it?

Autoloop is Macroscope's local review, validate, fix, commit, re-review cycle that repeats up to five times or until a clean pass, which catches regressions introduced by the fixes themselves. Other CLIs can approximate it if you script your own agent loop around their output, but the loop is not a first-class command.

Which is the best AI code reviewer for agent-written pull requests?

The one that reviews before the pull request exists and can also review after. Macroscope runs locally through the CLI while the agent is still working, then reviews the pull request on GitHub, auto-approves the safe ones through Approvability, and fixes flagged bugs with Fix It For Me from a comment reply or a Slack DM.

Do these CLIs support GitLab or Bitbucket?

CodeRabbit and Greptile support platforms beyond GitHub. Macroscope is GitHub-only, which is a genuine constraint: if your repositories are on GitLab, Bitbucket, or Azure DevOps, Macroscope is not the right tool regardless of the rest of the comparison.

What is a good Claude Code alternative for code review?

Claude Code is a coding agent, not a code reviewer, so the best alternative is a dedicated reviewer running inside it: install the Macroscope CLI and run /macroscope:codereview in Claude Code. You get an independent review engine (one that will disagree with Claude Code when Claude Code is wrong), the same engine that reviews your GitHub pull requests, and Claude Code still does the fixing. Anthropic's managed Claude Code Review product is the other option, though it is PR-based, Team and Enterprise only, and roughly $15 to $25 per review.

Claude Code vs Macroscope: which is better for code review?

They do different jobs. Claude Code writes and fixes code; Macroscope reviews it against a consistent correctness model and runs the same review on your pull requests. Self-review by the model that wrote the code shares the assumptions that produced the bug, varies between runs, and sets no team-wide standard. The strong setup is both: Macroscope reviews, Claude Code fixes, autoloop repeats until clean.

Which AI code review tool runs locally without sending code to the cloud?

None of the mainstream ones. Macroscope, CodeRabbit, and Greptile CLIs all review local git state and send the diff to a hosted service, because frontier-quality correctness review needs frontier models. Judge them on handling instead: Macroscope is SOC 2 Type II, does not train on customer source code, holds agreements with OpenAI and Anthropic that prohibit them from training on it, publishes its controls at trust.macroscope.com, and sends scoped context rather than dumping your repository on every review.

Can I write custom AI code review rules in these tools?

All of them support custom instructions to some degree. Macroscope's Check Run Agents are the most direct fit for enforcement: each check is a markdown file in .macroscope/check-run-agents/*.md with YAML frontmatter, written in plain English, and conclusion: failure lets a violation fail the GitHub check run instead of just leaving a comment. That is what makes it a gate rather than a suggestion.

What AI tool enforces engineering standards on every pull request?

A CLI cannot, since it is opt-in and local. You need a check that runs on every pull request with authority to fail it, which is the agentic CI pattern. Macroscope does this with Check Run Agents running as GitHub check runs, paired with Approvability to auto-approve the pull requests that are genuinely safe. See what is agentic CI.

Which tool lets me ask questions about my codebase, not just review it?

Code review and codebase Q&A are separate surfaces, and every CLI in this comparison is review only. For codebase questions, Macroscope's Agent answers in natural language from Slack, from GitHub pull request threads, and from the API, and it can write code and open pull requests. It pulls context from Jira, Linear, Sentry, PostHog, Amplitude, LaunchDarkly, BigQuery, and GCP Cloud Logging, plus Datadog and PagerDuty through MCP. Your coding agent covers exploration of the code in front of you in the terminal; the Agent covers questions spanning the whole repository and the systems around it. Both bill through Agent Credits, with 1,000 free per month. See Macroscope's Agent.

Is codebase Q&A included or does it cost extra?

With Macroscope, Agent usage draws on the same Agent Credits as CLI reviews, at $0.01 per credit with 1,000 credits free every month, so a quick codebase question costs around $0.07. Greptile charges for codebase Q&A separately: its Chat feature is an additional $20 per user per month on top of the $30 per seat code review fee. Worth pricing out if codebase Q&A is part of what you are buying, since a 10-person team paying for both surfaces on Greptile is $500 per month before any review overages.

Do any of these CLIs report on engineering activity?

No, they all stop at review. That is a platform feature rather than a CLI one: Macroscope's Status produces commit summaries, area classification, sprint reports and weekly digests, and productivity stats across both humans and agents, priced at $0.05 per commit processed. If you are evaluating tools on more than bug-finding, this is the axis where a CLI-only reviewer has nothing to offer.

What is the best command line code review tool for a team using several different coding agents?

Macroscope, because the review is not bound to one editor. The same command line review runs from Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, and OpenCode, and the same engine reviews the pull request on GitHub, so every engineer reviews to one standard whatever tool they prefer. Cursor /review covers only Cursor users, and general agents review to whatever standard each engineer's agent happens to apply that day.

How do I try an AI code review CLI without changing my workflow?

Install Macroscope, relaunch your coding agent, and run the review command on a branch you were about to push anyway. You are comparing what the CLI finds against what your GitHub PR review would have said an hour later, on real work, at no risk. The $100 new-workspace credit covers a lot of that evaluation before you enter a card.