open-code-review
Related Servers
Alternatives to open-code-review
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseDqualityAmaintenanceSkylos MCP server exposes static analysis as tools for AI coding agents — scan any Python, TypeScript, or Go codebase for dead code, security vulnerabilities, and quality issues directly from Claude, Cursor, or any MCP-compatible client. Returns findings with file paths, line numbers, and severity so agents can auto-fix issues in context.1213,750 PyPI836Apache 2.0
- AlicenseBqualityAmaintenanceSecurity MCP server with 300+ rules for AI-generated code. Scans Next.js, Supabase, Clerk, Stripe, Prisma, Hono, GraphQL and 20+ modules. Zero config, runs locally.392,352 npm5Apache 2.0
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceAI-powered codebase intelligence tool that builds a dependency graph of a git repo for structural Q&A and pre-PR code review. It exposes MCP tools for blast radius, review sessions, and static analysis, running locally over stdio with no LLM or network dependencies.MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceStatic analysis for vibe-coded apps. Flags security, reliability, performance, and AI quality issues in code generated by Cursor, v0, Bolt, and Copilot.380 npm15MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceEnables AI-powered, zero-trust code review with multiple models, supporting single files, git diffs, and multiple files, with security, performance, and architecture checks across 10+ languages.13MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceOpen-source AI code review MCP server for local git diff auditing with deterministic security rules and AI-powered analysis using any OpenAI-compatible model.4MIT
TDQS
Scored across 4 tools
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no overlap: explain_issue provides explanations, heal_code prepares repair prompts, scan_diff analyzes git diffs, and scan_directory scans directories. The descriptions clearly differentiate their functions, making misselection unlikely.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (explain_issue, heal_code, scan_diff, scan_directory) with clear, descriptive verbs that match their actions. There are no deviations in naming conventions.
Four tools are reasonable for a code review server, covering explanation, repair, diff scanning, and directory scanning. It's slightly lean but well-scoped, as each tool serves a distinct function without redundancy.
The tool set covers key code review workflows: scanning (diff and directory), explaining issues, and preparing repairs. Minor gaps might include tools for applying fixes directly or managing review states, but the core functionality is well-covered for the domain.