Cubic

AI PR Review · #1 of 20 in category · #1 of 27 overall

AI code review for GitHub PRs plus scheduled whole-codebase bug scans, with local CLI review, custom agents, and issue checks.

Visit Cubic [↗] See the matrix

[ Where it fits ]

On the documented evidence, Cubic suits teams reviewing against tickets, not just diffs.

[ Documented strengths ]

Multi-dimensional Context. AI wiki indexes the repo; cross-repo reviews can read up to 5 linked repositories during PR review.
Rule-Centric & Default Quiet. cubic.yaml custom agents with sensitivity levels and ignore filters; docs promise minimal verbosity.
Dual-Workflow: Local vs. PR. Local CLI review before pushing, IDE/agent setup (Cursor, VS Code, Claude Code), and an MCP server.
Business Logic Validation. Checks PRs against linked Linear/Jira issue requirements, posting a done/missing table in the review.
Continuous Learning. Thumbs up/down calibrate per-codebase noise; typed replies are remembered; learnings visible in settings.
Actionability. 'Fix with cubic' background agents generate and apply fixes; Pro adds auto-created fix PRs.
Measurable ROI. Review, delivery, and authorship dashboards incl. cycle-time and merge-time trends; no cost-per-PR telemetry.

[ Documented gaps ]

No standard is documented as unavailable — but 1 are not documented either way.

[ Facts ]

Category: AI PR Review
Open source: No — proprietary
Pricing: Free: 20 PR reviews/mo; Team $30/dev/mo annual ($40 monthly); Pro $79/dev/mo annual ($99 monthly); Enterprise custom. Free for OSS teams source ↗
Self-hosted: Unknown — No self-hosted or VPC deployment published; Enterprise details gated behind a demo (lists GitHub Enterprise support only).
Platforms: GitHub
Model control: Fixed vendor models (OpenAI, Anthropic); BYOK listed only as an Enterprise plan feature
Last verified: 2026-08-11

[ Against the 9 standards ]

Based on public documentation as of 2026-08-11. ✓ documented · ~ partial · ✗ not offered · ? undocumented. Undocumented scores zero — see the methodology.

✓ Multi-dimensional Context

AI wiki indexes the repo; cross-repo reviews can read up to 5 linked repositories during PR review.

✓ Rule-Centric & Default Quiet

cubic.yaml custom agents with sensitivity levels and ignore filters; docs promise minimal verbosity.

✓ Dual-Workflow: Local vs. PR

Local CLI review before pushing, IDE/agent setup (Cursor, VS Code, Claude Code), and an MCP server.

✓ Business Logic Validation

Checks PRs against linked Linear/Jira issue requirements, posting a done/missing table in the review.

✓ Continuous Learning

Thumbs up/down calibrate per-codebase noise; typed replies are remembered; learnings visible in settings.

? Sandbox Validation

No documented code execution, test runs, or preview-environment validation.

~ Economic Transparency

BYOK gated to Enterprise; per-seat pricing with LOC quotas and flex top-ups; no token-cost visibility.

✓ Actionability

'Fix with cubic' background agents generate and apply fixes; Pro adds auto-created fix PRs.

✓ Measurable ROI

Review, delivery, and authorship dashboards incl. cycle-time and merge-time trends; no cost-per-PR telemetry.

[ Cubic vs the alternatives ]

Head to head Cubic vs Kodus 7.5/9 · 6.5/9 Head to head Cubic vs CodeRabbit 7.5/9 · 6/9

[ Closest alternatives ]

AI PR Review Augment Code 6.5/9 AI PR Review Baz 6.5/9 AI PR Review CodeAnt AI 6.5/9 AI PR Review Entelligence AI 6.5/9

[ FAQ ]

Is Cubic open source?

No. Cubic is proprietary — you can use it, but you cannot read or fork the review engine.

Can Cubic be self-hosted?

Unknown. No self-hosted or VPC deployment published; Enterprise details gated behind a demo (lists GitHub Enterprise support only). Verified against the vendor's own documentation on 2026-08-11.

How much does Cubic cost?

Free: 20 PR reviews/mo; Team $30/dev/mo annual ($40 monthly); Pro $79/dev/mo annual ($99 monthly); Enterprise custom. Free for OSS teams. Seat price is only part of the bill: Cubic handles models as fixed vendor models (openai, anthropic); byok listed only as an enterprise plan feature, which is what usually decides the real monthly cost.

How does Cubic score against the 9-pillar AI code review standard?

7.5 out of 9. It fully documents 7 standards, partially documents 1, does not offer 0, and leaves 1 undocumented. The score is coverage of documented capability, not a measure of review quality.

What are the alternatives to Cubic?

The closest tools in this directory are Augment Code, Baz, CodeAnt AI, Entelligence AI. Each is scored against the same 9 standards, so the matrices are directly comparable.

Evaluating Cubic?

Run it through the two-week trial protocol before you commit a team to it.

Evaluation guide [↗]