Skip to main content
Glama
KentQi

cc-code-review

by KentQi
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Related Servers

Alternatives to cc-code-review

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • Co-dev review MCP

      MohamedAmineBoufares
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Enables an MCP-capable assistant to review GitLab merge requests, GitHub pull requests, and pre-push local branches against ticket requirements, domain rubrics, compiler/lint pre-passes, blast-radius analysis, and SonarQube findings, and to draft inline comments or follow-up tasks in the user's chosen language. Nothing reaches a remote host until a human approves the exact content in an interactive terminal.
      3
      MIT

    • Claude Code MCP

      sarthchawla
      F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Delegates coding tasks to the local Claude Code CLI via MCP, offering run, review, and status tools for MCP-compatible agents.
      20 npm
      -

    • claude-code-mcp

      xihuai18
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Wraps Claude Code as tools for MCP clients, enabling autonomous coding tasks via a 4-tool lifecycle with session management, async polling, and permission controls.
      4
      43 npm
      20
      MIT

    • ai-review

      mdanouf44-cyber
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables interactive GitHub pull-request review from Claude Code, with tools to fetch PRs, inspect files and repo structure, post review comments, and query a RAG index of the codebase.
      1
      MIT
    Deploy Server
    Shareable, User-Owned Context BackendPeople, applications, and agents read, write, and coordinate together in one context lake. Reach it over MCP, a CLI, a Python SDK, or REST.fulcradynamics.comAd

    TDQS

    A4/5.0

    Scored across 3 tools

    Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool targets a distinct phase: environment validation/setup (claude_review_env), the review run itself (claude_code_review), and continuing a prior session (claude_review_followup). No overlap in purpose; an agent can easily pick the right one based on state.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    All names are snake_case with a claude_ prefix, which is consistent. However, the token order varies slightly (review_env vs code_review vs review_followup), preventing a perfectly predictable verb_noun pattern.

    Tool Count5/5

    Three tools map exactly to the necessary lifecycle: check/setup, execute, and follow-up. No redundant or missing tools for this focused scope; each earns its place.

    Completeness4/5

    Covers setup, execution, and session continuation, which is the core lifecycle for a code-review workflow. Minor optional gaps like listing past sessions or cancelling a run exist but are not essential for the stated purpose.

    Maintenance

    ActivityMaintained
    ResponsivenessNo issues

    Resources