ThinkReview

ThinkReview is a code-review assistant for pull and merge requests, with browser-extension and coding-assistant workflows. It is best suited to developers and teams who want to tailor feedback and approve comments before they reach a pull request. Its combination of project-specific rules and local-model support is appealing, though daily caps and trial-term uncertainty deserve attention.

Overview

Reviews are manually triggered in a browser sidebar. You can discuss a change, edit the review comment and post it yourself; nothing is written to the pull request until you choose to publish it. That safeguard makes ThinkReview a better fit for teams seeking an assistant than for those expecting an automatic reviewer to leave comments on their behalf.

Feedback covers code quality, security and best practices, alongside quality scoring, follow-up questions and fix suggestions. Custom rules and project-specific agents can align reviews with a team's standards and technology stack. This flexibility is useful when general recommendations are not enough, but review-credit and agent limits constrain how much feedback teams can request.

Key features

Code-host and assistant workflows

The extension supports GitHub, GitLab, Azure DevOps and Bitbucket, including several self-hosted editions. ThinkReview MCP also supports live pull-request reviews from Cursor, Claude Code and Copilot, returning structured feedback. This gives teams more than one way to bring reviews into their development workflow.

Local and enterprise processing

With Ollama, reviews can run on local models without sending patches to the cloud, including on air-gapped machines. That is a meaningful option for teams that cannot send code diffs to hosted services. The Enterprise Gateway routes diffs, Git tool results and model traffic through the customer's network, but it is available on the Teams plan after enterprise provisioning.

The maker says cloud review diffs are processed in memory, discarded rather than stored, and not used for AI training. Cloud conversation data may be retained for up to 90 days for operational purposes, so teams should weigh that retention separately from diff handling.

Pricing

ThinkReview has a free plan and paid Lite and Professional plans. The free plan has no published price and is aimed at individual developers: it includes two review credits per day, supports GitHub.com and GitLab.com, and is limited to small pull requests of up to 1,000 lines of code changes. That is a narrow way to try the workflow, not a fit for larger changes or broader host coverage.

Lite costs $10 a month and includes 15 review credits per day, pull requests up to 40,000 lines, up to three custom review agents per pull request, GitLab custom domains and Bitbucket Cloud. It suits developers or smaller teams that need substantially more daily capacity and larger pull-request support than Free, but its host coverage is more limited than Professional.

Professional costs $16 a month and raises the allowance to 25 daily credits and up to five custom review agents per pull request. It adds GitHub Enterprise Server, Azure DevOps Cloud and Server, and priority support. Teams using those hosts, or needing more daily reviews and agents, have a concrete reason to pay the difference; other users may not need its expanded coverage.

The pricing FAQ says Lite and Professional have a seven-day trial on monthly billing or a 14-day trial on annual billing, while the homepage pricing section labels both trials as five days. Confirm the applicable trial duration before relying on it. Support is offered by live chat and email, with typical responses within 24 hours.

Platforms

ThinkReview supports API, browser extension, Linux, macOS, web and Windows. Its deployment model is hybrid, with local-model use through Ollama and an enterprise network-routing option alongside cloud reviews.

Who it's for

ThinkReview is a sensible choice for developers and teams who want review suggestions shaped by their own rules, across several code hosts, while retaining control over what gets posted. It is less compelling for teams that need uncapped daily review volume, automatic posting, or a simple, unambiguous trial commitment.

Pros and cons

• Pros: Comments remain under user control until posted, reducing the risk of unwanted AI feedback appearing on a pull request.
• Pros: Custom rules and project-specific agents can make feedback more relevant to a team's standards and stack.
• Pros: Ollama support enables local reviews, including on air-gapped machines.
• Cons: The free plan allows only two daily credits and small pull requests, limiting its usefulness for sustained or larger reviews.
• Cons: Paid plans still impose daily credit caps and per-pull-request agent limits.
• Cons: Trial duration differs between the FAQ and homepage pricing section.
• Cons: Cloud conversation data may be retained for up to 90 days, despite the separate statement that cloud diffs are discarded after in-memory processing.

Alternatives

Explore the AI Code Review Tools directory if you want to compare the category more broadly.

Choose CodeRabbit if its free reviews for public repositories suit your needs. DeepSource is an alternative with a free Open Source plan that includes unlimited public repositories and team members, plus a monthly pull-request review allowance. Consider LiveReview as another freemium option. Octopus may suit teams seeking a self-hosted, source-available option with no platform fees, using their own AI keys or local models.

Ironwood AI offers a paid product with a 30-day evaluation for two developers and one active installation. AI Code Reviewer is a free option where users pay only their model provider's usage costs. Codacy has a free Developer plan with an IDE plugin and integrations for VSCode, JetBrains and Cursor. CodeAnt AI is another paid alternative with a 14-day free trial and no credit card required.

Verdict

Choose ThinkReview if your team wants project-tailored review feedback across its code hosts, with a human deciding what reaches the pull request and local processing available when cloud patches are unsuitable. Look elsewhere if daily limits are too restrictive, unattended posting is essential, or the differing trial terms make the commitment hard to assess.