Skip to main content
Glama

CodePecker

An MCP server that reviews a piece of code across four dimensions — security, standards, production readiness, sustainability — automatically fixes the issues, verifies the fix by running the code's tests, and reports what it did. Any MCP-capable agent (Claude Code, Codex, Copilot) can call it as a tool; there's also a CLI for local demos.

review → remediate → run tests → repeat (bounded)   →   findings + fixed code + diff + citations

How it works

For each of the four dimensions, CodePecker gathers findings two ways:

  • Deterministic checks (regex/code) for rules that must be caught reliably — hardcoded secrets, eval/unsafe deserialization, bare except, missing tests. No LLM, so they never "forget".

  • An LLM judge for the nuanced rules (input validation, logging, timeouts, N+1 queries, …), with guardrails: it may only cite rules from the batch it was given, any evidence it quotes must appear in the code, and severity/dimension come from the rule metadata — hallucinated findings are dropped in code.

Each rule lives in a markdown file in knowledge_base/ (RAG), tagged deterministic: true|false so it's enforced by exactly one path. A hand-written, bounded agent loop then asks the model to remediate and re-runs the tests — a fix that resolves a finding but breaks the tests is not accepted.

The full "why" behind every decision is in DECISIONS.md.

Related MCP server: Code-Oracle

Setup

Requires Python 3.10+.

git clone <this repo> && cd CodePecker
python -m venv .venv && source .venv/bin/activate
pip install -r requirements.txt
pip install -e . --no-deps            # makes `codepecker` + `python -m codepecker.*` work
cp .env.example .env                  # then add your key (below)

Keys — the default needs just one. Text runs on Groq (fast Llama 3.3 70B) and embeddings run locally (no key). Put your Groq key in .env:

GROQ_API_KEY=...        # free key at https://console.groq.com/keys

Provider-agnostic via LiteLLM — switch model or provider with no code change, e.g. CODEPECKER_TEXT_MODEL=openai/gpt-4o (one key does both), or go fully offline with CODEPECKER_TEXT_MODEL=ollama/llama3.1. See .env.example.

Usage

CLI (local demo)

codepecker examples/sample_bad_code.py
# or:  python -m codepecker.cli examples/sample_bad_code.py

Prints the findings, the remediated code, a unified diff, the rules cited, and a metrics summary. Each run is appended to metrics.jsonl.

Reliable live demo: the loop makes many LLM calls, so a free tier's tokens-per-minute cap can throttle a full run. The loop is resilient — a mid-run rate limit is recorded and the review still completes (with degraded coverage noted) rather than crashing. For a smooth end-to-end demo, use a higher-limit tier or run the text model locally: CODEPECKER_TEXT_MODEL=ollama/llama3.1 (no key, no limits).

MCP server (in an agent)

Run it over stdio:

python -m codepecker.server

Connect it to an MCP client with this config (Claude Desktop / Codex / Copilot use the same shape):

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "codepecker": {
      "command": "/absolute/path/to/.venv/bin/python",
      "args": ["-m", "codepecker.server"],
      "env": { "GROQ_API_KEY": "your-key" }
    }
  }
}

For Claude Code:

claude mcp add codepecker -- /absolute/path/to/.venv/bin/python -m codepecker.server

The server exposes one tool, review_and_remediate(code, language).

Evaluation

python eval/run_eval.py

Runs CodePecker over the labeled golden set (eval/golden/) and reports precision/recall/F1 per dimension, remediation resolution + test-pass rates, and mean iterations/latency; writes eval/report.json. This is the "how do I know it's good?" evidence and is meant to run in CI. (It drives the full loop over every sample, so use a decent rate-limit tier.)

Design decisions (the short "why")

Decision

Why

MCP server, not a bot/CI check

Reusable across agents, and reviews in the loop rather than post-hoc

Hand-written loop, no LangChain

Bounded task; transparent and testable control flow

RAG over fine-tuning for rules

Rules stay editable, auditable, and citable (markdown files)

Deterministic secrets/eval/except vs LLM for nuance

Reliability where it's non-negotiable, flexibility where it's fuzzy

Tests gate success

A fix that breaks behavior is a failure, not a fix

Judge guardrails (constrained citations + evidence grounding)

Hallucinated findings are dropped by code, not trusted

One LLM seam (LiteLLM behind LLMClient)

Swapping provider — or going offline — is a config change

Sandboxed test run (subprocess + timeout)

Executing untrusted code is a security boundary

Full detail — every alternative considered and every trade-off — in DECISIONS.md.

Project layout

src/codepecker/
  config.py            env-driven model IDs + tuning constants
  types.py             LLM Protocols (DIP/ISP) + the Finding type
  llm_client.py        the only module that talks to a provider (LiteLLM)
  vector_store.py      ChromaDB adapter (RAG index)
  knowledge/loader.py  parse + embed the markdown knowledge banks
  tools/
    deterministic_checks.py   code checks, keyed by rule id
    judge.py                  batched, guardrailed LLM judge
    run_tests.py              sandboxed pytest runner
  agent.py             review_and_remediate() — the bounded loop
  metrics.py           append-only metrics log + summary
  cli.py               local demo runner
  server.py            FastMCP server (stdio)
knowledge_base/        the rules: security/ standards/ readiness/ sustainability/
eval/                  golden samples + run_eval.py
tests/                 the test suite

Testing

pytest -q                       # 85 offline tests (local embeddings, faked LLM)
pytest -m "live or not live"    # + the 1 live acceptance test (needs GROQ_API_KEY)

The default suite is fully offline and deterministic; the one live test is opt-in.

Non-goals / next steps

MVP simplifications, called out honestly (see DECISIONS.md):

  • Sandbox is a subprocess + timeout, not a container — production wants gVisor/a microVM with no network and resource limits.

  • Deterministic checks are regex-based — production would use AST analysis.

  • Local embeddings (all-MiniLM-L6-v2) trade recall for zero keys — swap in a hosted embedder for higher-quality retrieval at scale.

  • Not yet: metadata-routed retrieval for very large rule sets, a metrics dashboard, real GitHub integration, runtime energy profiling, remote HTTP/Cloud Run deploy.

F
license - not found
-
quality - not tested
B
maintenance

Maintenance

Maintainers
Response time
Release cycle
Releases (12mo)
Commit activity

Resources

Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.

Looking for Admin?

If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Abdul4code/CodePecker'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server