Skip to main content
Glama

Related Servers

Alternatives to bounty-operator

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Hosts an advisory review layer that compares proposed agent tool calls and explanations against developer-owned policy and available evidence before a human decision, returning grounded approval recommendations over MCP.
      MIT
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Lets MCP clients such as Claude or ChatGPT find the pull requests waiting on your review, read their details and changed files, check CI status, post comments, and submit approve, request-changes, or comment reviews. It runs locally over stdio with a personal token or as a remote server with its own OAuth 2.1 authorization server (PKCE, dynamic client registration, per-client consent, and refresh-token rotation) so GitHub is only used to sign the user in.
      6
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      A local-first, auditable code review MCP server that freezes Git changes, creates immutable ReviewBundles, provides role-isolated contexts for correctness, security, architecture, and test reviewers, validates structured findings, and generates deterministic JSON/Markdown reports.
      6 npm
      1
      Apache 2.0
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables MCP-compatible agent hosts to delegate governed, read-only security audits and reviews of code, applications, agents, prompts, MCP configurations, and cloud environments through evidence-first findings and stable schemas.
      2
      Apache 2.0
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Self-hosted MCP engine for private code reviews, providing deterministic static analysis and AST-level search over diffs, with findings passed to a review agent of your choice.
      5
      2
      AGPL 3.0

    TDQS

    A4.3/5.0

    Scored across 6 tools

    Disambiguation4/5

    Each tool has a distinct role in the review workflow: discovery, allowance check, own-model prep, hosted run, packet build, and full plan. The only near-overlap is run_review vs prepare_review, but the descriptions sharply separate them (hosted vs own-model, with explicit error codes like hosted_profile/operator_only), so misselection is unlikely.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    Five of six names follow a clear verb_noun pattern (run_review, build_packet, list_profiles, prepare_review, run_gauntlet_plan). The lone noun 'account' is a minor deviation but still readable and unambiguous.

    Tool Count5/5

    Six tools map cleanly onto the workflow stages with no filler. Each earns its place, sitting comfortably in the well-scoped 3-15 range.

    Completeness4/5

    The surface covers profile discovery, allowance, prep, hosted execution, evidence packaging, and a full gauntlet plan—essentially the whole pre-submission lifecycle. Minor gaps like inspecting prior reviews or explicit submission are not present but don't block core workflows.

    Maintenance

    ActivityMaintained
    ResponsivenessOutdated data