Qualimetry
Enterprise
An expert reviewer on every pull request, holding your standards
When agents are opening pull requests faster than a team can read them, review has to scale without being abandoned. Qualimetry reviews every pull request against the standards you published, proposes the compliant rewrite, and keeps a human accountable for the decision.
Five perspectives, all of them yours
The reviewer is not applying a generic best-practice list. Each perspective is checked against the content you authored in the Standards Center.
Coding Standards
Does this change follow the language standards you published for the language it is written in?
Design & Architecture
Is the structure sound, and does the change respect the architecture standards you published for it?
General Principles
Naming, structure, error handling, testability, the things that apply everywhere.
Secure Principles
Your secure coding posture, applied to the change rather than to a generic rule list.
Policies
The organisation-level decisions that must hold regardless of language or team.
Wherever the pull request is opened
Review runs from the pull request event itself, so there is nothing for a developer to remember and nothing to invoke.
Connect the repositories
Register your source control once. Reviews then run on every pull request, with per-project inclusion and exclusion when you need it.
Review the change
Analysis can be scoped to the diff, so the reviewer focuses on what this change did rather than relitigating the whole file.
Gate the merge
Compliance, review completion and human sign-off can each hold a merge, and you choose which are enforced.
It does not just flag problems, it shows the fix
For each finding, the reviewer diagnoses the underlying problem, explains which standard it breaches and why, and generates a compliant rewrite the author or the agent can adopt directly.
- Diagnoses the underlying problem rather than pointing at a symptom.
- Explains which standard it breaches so the author understands the reason, not just the rule.
- Offers a compliant example to copy that resolves the finding in your house style.
- Is available to the agent too through the MCP server, so the fix can be applied without a human relaying it.
Accept a finding, or call it a false positive
An automated reviewer that cannot be argued with loses credibility within a fortnight. Every finding is resolvable by a person, and the resolution is recorded.
- Accept a finding and it becomes work to be done.
- Mark it a false positive and it stops being counted against the project.
- Assign it so the finding has an owner rather than a queue.
- Require the sign-off at the merge, so a person is accountable for what shipped.
A steady stream of false positives on a standard is itself a signal: the standard needs rewriting, and Strategic Insights surfaces that.
The best review is the one that had nothing to find
Review is the safety net, not the mechanism. The same standards the reviewer checks are delivered into the agent's context before it writes, so most of what review would have caught never gets written in the first place.
See how agents get your standardsWhere this sits in Continuous Analysis
None of this works as a separate product. Each stage exists because of the one before it and is only worth doing because of the one after it.
AI code review, answered
Does this replace human review?
What is it actually reviewing against?
Which platforms does it run on?
Can we control which projects it runs on?
Put an expert reviewer on every pull request
Book a demo and see a real pull request reviewed against your own standards, with the compliant rewrite offered.