Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
cc-code-review

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
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Delegates coding tasks to the local Claude Code CLI via MCP, offering run, review, and status tools for MCP-compatible agents.
      22 npm
      MIT

    • 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
      73 npm
      21
      MIT

    • ai-review

      mdanouf44-cyber
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      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

    A4.3/5.0

    Scored across 4 tools

    Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool covers a distinct phase of a single workflow: environment/diagnostic setup, launching a review, polling/cancelling a job, and continuing a prior session. The only potential overlap (claude_code_review vs claude_review_followup) is clearly separated by 'start new run' vs 'pass session_id to continue'. Descriptions explicitly disambiguate async vs sync behavior.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    All names share a claude_ prefix and a noun-action feel (review_env, code_review, review_status, review_followup), making the family obvious. Minor deviation: claude_code_review inserts 'code' where others use claude_review_*, so the prefix isn't perfectly uniform.

    Tool Count5/5

    Four tools is a tight, well-scoped surface for a code-review runner: setup check, run, monitor, follow-up. Each tool maps to a necessary step and none feels redundant or missing for the stated purpose.

    Completeness4/5

    The lifecycle is essentially covered: diagnose/install skill, run review, poll/cancel, and follow up with the same reviewer context. Minor gaps: no dedicated tool to retrieve or list past reports/JSONL transcripts, and no explicit way to configure review parameters (scope, thresholds) beyond defaults.

    Maintenance

    ActivityMaintained
    ResponsivenessSyncing

    Resources