# How to review code your agents wrote: Claude Code Review vs Codex review vs a second-agent review (2026)

By Anurag Sharma | Published 2026-10-26

Source: https://traycer.ai/compare/claude-code-review-vs-codex-review

> Claude Code Review vs Codex review: pricing, setup, GitHub triggers and limits compared, plus how to add a second-agent review before you merge AI-written PRs.

*By Anurag Sharma. Last checked: October 26, 2026.*

Claude Code Review is Anthropic's managed, multi-agent pull-request reviewer for Claude Team and Enterprise organizations, billed on token usage through usage credits. Codex code review is OpenAI's `@codex review`, automatic GitHub reviews and local `/review`, included from ChatGPT Plus within plan usage limits. A second-agent review has a different coding agent check the author agent's diff before you merge. It adds an independent check that works alongside either one.

*Prices, plans and limits on this page link to the vendor pages we checked on October 26, 2026. Re-check them before you buy.* This page is about Anthropic's Code Review feature, not a review of Claude Code itself. For the broader product comparison, see [Codex vs Claude Code](https://traycer.ai/compare/codex-vs-claude-code).

## TL;DR: which review setup fits your team

- **Pick Claude Code Review** if you're on Claude Team or Enterprise, host code on GitHub (including GitHub Enterprise Server), and want a verified, multi-agent review on pull requests with per-repository depth and an organization spend limit ([Code Review](https://code.claude.com/docs/en/code-review)).
- **Pick Codex code review** if you're on ChatGPT Plus or higher, or a Business or Enterprise workspace, and want reviews included in your plan, `@codex review` on demand and `@codex fix` to act on a finding ([pricing](https://learn.chatgpt.com/docs/pricing), [GitHub](https://learn.chatgpt.com/docs/third-party/github)).
- **Add a second-agent review** if agents write most of your code, you already pay for both vendors, or you want the review to come from a model that didn't write the change. You can wire it up by hand or run it in Traycer (see below).
- **In every case,** keep tests, branch protection and a human approval as the merge gate. Anthropic says a review "never approves or blocks the pull request, so the decision to merge stays with your team" ([Code Review](https://code.claude.com/docs/en/code-review)). OpenAI says review rules "don't replace tests, branch protections, or required approvals" ([GitHub](https://learn.chatgpt.com/docs/third-party/github)).

## Why agent-written PRs need a different review step

The volume changed first. When Anthropic launched Code Review in March 2026, it wrote: "Code output per Anthropic engineer has grown 200% in the last year. Code review has become a bottleneck" ([March 9, 2026 post](https://claude.com/blog/code-review)). At general availability in October it added: "Coding agents keep increasing the pace at which teams write code, and the review bottleneck hasn't eased" ([GA post](https://claude.com/resources/articles/code-review-is-now-generally-available)). Anthropic also reports that after it launched the research preview, the share of its internal PRs getting substantive review comments went from 16% to 54% ([claude.dev blog, Oct 15, 2026](https://claude.dev/blog/solving-code-review-at-anthropic/)).

More code per engineer means less human attention per line. An automated reviewer fills that gap. Independence matters because an agent reviewing its own work shares its own blind spots.

A vendor-neutral way to review AI-generated code:

1. **Read the intent.** Check the task or ticket before you read the diff, so you judge the change against what was asked.
2. **Run the checks.** Tests, types and lint should pass before anyone spends review time.
3. **Review by risk.** Start with auth, data writes, migrations and anything that's hard to undo.
4. **Add an independent reviewer.** A managed reviewer, a second agent, or both.
5. **Keep a human merge decision.** Both vendors' reviewers leave the decision with you.

Neither vendor claims its reviewer catches everything. Anthropic's own caveat: "A review with no findings doesn't mean your code is error-free or secure" ([Code Review](https://code.claude.com/docs/en/code-review)).

## What is Claude Code Review?

### How it works

Several agents read each change alongside the surrounding code, looking for logic errors, security vulnerabilities and broken edge cases. A review runs on Anthropic infrastructure in four stages: find, verify, rank and post. The verify step "checks the candidate findings against the code and filters out false positives" ([Code Review](https://code.claude.com/docs/en/code-review)).

A review gets read-only access to your repository and doesn't push commits. It works "from reading the diff and the surrounding code, without building or running your code." Each review leaves inline comments ranked by severity, a summary, and a check run named **Claude Code Review** that "doesn't conclude as a failure" ([Code Review](https://code.claude.com/docs/en/code-review)). Findings are marked Important, Nit or Pre-existing. Pre-existing covers bugs the PR didn't introduce ([reading reviews](https://code.claude.com/docs/en/code-review-pull-requests)). By default it focuses on correctness, "not formatting preferences or missing test coverage."

### Who can use it

- **Plans:** Team and Enterprise only.
- **Code hosts:** GitHub, including GitHub Enterprise Server and GitHub Enterprise Cloud with data residency.
- **Not available** to organizations with Zero Data Retention or the HIPAA configuration, or that use customer-managed encryption keys, and not covered under Anthropic's BAA ([Code Review](https://code.claude.com/docs/en/code-review)).

### Setup

An Owner of the Claude organization turns on **Allow code review** in **Admin settings > Claude Code**, connects GitHub, installs the Claude GitHub App and picks repositories. You don't add workflow files ([setup](https://code.claude.com/docs/en/code-review-setup)). Each repository has a **Review runs** setting:

- **Once after PR creation**
- **After every push**, which is where newly added repositories start and which runs the most reviews
- **Manual (@claude review)**

Anyone with write access can comment `@claude review`, or `@claude review always` to subscribe a pull request to reviews on later pushes. Automatic reviews skip drafts and pull requests from forks ([setup](https://code.claude.com/docs/en/code-review-setup)).

### Review levels and repository rules

An Owner picks **Quick**, **Standard** (the default) or **Deep** for the organization and can override it per repository. Deep is "The most thorough pass. Takes the longest and costs the most" ([setup](https://code.claude.com/docs/en/code-review-setup)). Code Review chooses the models itself. There's no model setting ([Code Review](https://code.claude.com/docs/en/code-review)).

You tune what it flags with `REVIEW.md` and `CLAUDE.md`. `REVIEW.md` is read from the base or default branch and "never from the pull request's own changes," so a PR can't rewrite its own review rules ([Code Review](https://code.claude.com/docs/en/code-review), [customize](https://code.claude.com/docs/en/code-review-customize)).

### Cost and speed

Code Review "has no flat per-review price." It's billed on token usage through usage credits, separately from your plan's included usage, and billed to the organization. Cost scales with the review level, the size of the change and how often reviews run. Owners set a monthly Code Review spend limit, and reviews are skipped when that limit, the organization limit or the credit balance runs out ([costs](https://code.claude.com/docs/en/code-review-costs)).

Older articles quote the preview figure. The March 2026 launch post said reviews "generally average $15–25, scaling with PR size and complexity" and took "around 20 minutes" ([March 9, 2026 post](https://claude.com/blog/code-review)). At GA on October 15, 2026, Anthropic said "Most reviews now finish about 3x faster (\~20 minutes down to 6-10 minutes)," and that eligible Enterprise organizations "can claim at least $10,000 in Code Review credits by January 15, 2027" ([GA post](https://claude.com/resources/articles/code-review-is-now-generally-available)).

### Other Claude review options

- **`/code-review`** (alias `/review`) runs in your own Claude Code session on any plan and counts toward your normal usage. `--fix` applies the findings and `--comment` posts them to a GitHub pull request or a GitLab merge request ([local review](https://code.claude.com/docs/en/code-review-local)).
- **Ultrareview** (`/code-review ultra`, a research preview) runs a multi-agent review in a cloud sandbox. Pro and Max accounts get three free runs, once. After that it's "typically $5 to $25 in usage credits," and a review "typically takes 15 to 25 minutes" ([ultrareview](https://code.claude.com/docs/en/ultrareview)).
- **`/security-review`** checks your branch's diff for vulnerabilities such as injection, auth issues and data exposure ([commands](https://code.claude.com/docs/en/commands)).
- **Claude in your own CI** runs through GitHub Actions or GitLab CI/CD with an API key or cloud provider credentials ([Code Review](https://code.claude.com/docs/en/code-review)).

## What is Codex code review?

### In GitHub

Connect the repository to Codex, then turn on **Automatic review** in Codex settings or comment `@codex review` on a pull request. Codex reacts with 👀 and posts "a standard GitHub code review." In GitHub it "flags only P0 and P1 issues so review comments stay focused on high-priority risks." Add a one-off focus in the comment, for example `@codex review for issues in the database migration` ([GitHub](https://learn.chatgpt.com/docs/third-party/github)).

To act on a finding, comment `@codex fix the P1 issue`. Codex starts a legacy cloud chat with the pull request as context "and can push a fix back to the branch when it has permission to do so." `@codex security review` requests a separate Security Review, which is in research preview ([GitHub](https://learn.chatgpt.com/docs/third-party/github)).

Repository rules go in a `## Code Review Rules` section of `AGENTS.md`. Codex applies the root file and any nested `AGENTS.md` that covers each changed file ([GitHub](https://learn.chatgpt.com/docs/third-party/github)).

### Locally with /review

In the Codex CLI and app, `/review` reviews against a base branch or your uncommitted changes. The CLI also takes a single commit or custom instructions. Codex reports prioritized findings "without changing your working tree." `review_model` in `config.toml` lets reviews use a different model from your session ([code review](https://learn.chatgpt.com/docs/code-review)). For scripts, `codex review` runs a non-interactive review of uncommitted changes, a base branch diff, a commit or custom instructions ([CLI reference](https://learn.chatgpt.com/docs/cli/reference)).

### In the Codex app

The app's Code Review plugin shows a pull request's description, changed files, comments and checks, with an inbox for reviews assigned to you or your team. **Review with Codex** starts a review in a new chat. Reviewing in chat "doesn't post comments, approve it, or merge it". **Submit review** is where you choose **Comment**, **Approve** or **Request changes** ([code review](https://learn.chatgpt.com/docs/code-review)).

### Plans and limits

GitHub code review and automatic PR reviews are available on Plus, Pro, Business and Enterprise, and not when you sign in with an API key. Plus is $20 a month. Reviews through GitHub count as Code Review usage. Reviews run locally or outside GitHub count toward your general usage limits ([pricing](https://learn.chatgpt.com/docs/pricing)). GitHub code review is generally available, and GitLab merge request review is in preview ([code review](https://learn.chatgpt.com/docs/code-review)). For what each subscription includes beyond review, see [Cursor vs Claude Code vs Codex](https://traycer.ai/compare/cursor-vs-claude-code-vs-codex).

## Claude Code Review vs Codex review: side-by-side

*Last checked: October 26, 2026. Re-check the pricing and availability rows before you rely on them.*

| Criterion | Claude Code Review | Codex code review | Second-agent review (DIY) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| What it is | Managed multi-agent PR reviewer: find, verify, rank, post ([Code Review](https://code.claude.com/docs/en/code-review)) | `@codex review` and automatic reviews in GitHub, plus `/review` locally ([GitHub](https://learn.chatgpt.com/docs/third-party/github), [code review](https://learn.chatgpt.com/docs/code-review)) | A different agent reviews the author agent's diff, such as `/codex:review` inside Claude Code ([codex-plugin-cc](https://github.com/openai/codex-plugin-cc)) |
| Who can use it | Claude Team and Enterprise only ([Code Review](https://code.claude.com/docs/en/code-review)) | ChatGPT Plus, Pro, Business and Enterprise; not with an API key ([pricing](https://learn.chatgpt.com/docs/pricing)) | Anyone with both agents; the Codex plugin needs a ChatGPT subscription (including Free) or an OpenAI API key ([codex-plugin-cc](https://github.com/openai/codex-plugin-cc)) |
| Price model | Token usage billed as usage credits, separate from plan usage; "no flat per-review price" ([costs](https://code.claude.com/docs/en/code-review-costs)). Preview post: "generally average $15–25" ([Mar 9, 2026](https://claude.com/blog/code-review)) | Included in plan limits; GitHub reviews count as Code Review usage, local reviews as general usage ([pricing](https://learn.chatgpt.com/docs/pricing)) | Each agent's own plan; the Codex plugin's usage "will contribute to your Codex usage limits" ([codex-plugin-cc](https://github.com/openai/codex-plugin-cc)) |
| How a review starts | Per repository: once after PR creation, after every push (the starting setting) or manual; `@claude review`, `@claude review always` ([setup](https://code.claude.com/docs/en/code-review-setup)) | **Automatic review** toggle and **Review trigger**; `@codex review [focus]` ([GitHub](https://learn.chatgpt.com/docs/third-party/github)) | You run it: `/codex:review --base main`, `codex review --base main`, or `/code-review` on the other agent's branch ([codex-plugin-cc](https://github.com/openai/codex-plugin-cc), [CLI reference](https://learn.chatgpt.com/docs/cli/reference), [local review](https://code.claude.com/docs/en/code-review-local)) |
| Where it runs | Anthropic infrastructure; read-only; doesn't build or run code ([Code Review](https://code.claude.com/docs/en/code-review)) | Codex cloud for GitHub reviews; your checkout for `/review` ([code review](https://learn.chatgpt.com/docs/code-review)) | Wherever the reviewing agent runs, usually your machine |
| What it posts | Inline comments ranked by severity, a summary, and a **Claude Code Review** check run that doesn't fail ([Code Review](https://code.claude.com/docs/en/code-review)) | A standard GitHub review with only P0 and P1 issues ([GitHub](https://learn.chatgpt.com/docs/third-party/github)) | Findings in the session, or a review artifact with prioritized findings in Traycer (`$traycer-review`); nothing is posted unless you post it |
| Approves or blocks? | Never approves or blocks ([Code Review](https://code.claude.com/docs/en/code-review)) | Review comments; in the app, you choose Comment, Approve or Request changes ([code review](https://learn.chatgpt.com/docs/code-review)) | No |
| Depth control | Quick, Standard (default) or Deep, per organization with per-repository overrides ([setup](https://code.claude.com/docs/en/code-review-setup)) | Custom review instructions; `review_model` for local reviews ([code review](https://learn.chatgpt.com/docs/code-review)) | `/codex:adversarial-review` takes focus text; `/code-review` takes effort levels from `low` to `max` ([codex-plugin-cc](https://github.com/openai/codex-plugin-cc), [local review](https://code.claude.com/docs/en/code-review-local)) |
| Repository rules | `REVIEW.md` and `CLAUDE.md`; `REVIEW.md` read from the base branch ([Code Review](https://code.claude.com/docs/en/code-review)) | `## Code Review Rules` in `AGENTS.md`, nested files apply ([GitHub](https://learn.chatgpt.com/docs/third-party/github)) | Each agent's own instruction files |
| Acting on findings | Push a fix; the next review resolves the earlier thread when it judges the issue fixed ([reading reviews](https://code.claude.com/docs/en/code-review-pull-requests)) | `@codex fix the P1 issue` starts a legacy cloud chat that can push a fix ([GitHub](https://learn.chatgpt.com/docs/third-party/github)) | By hand, or in Traycer with **Send to chat** on the review artifact ([review guide](https://docs.traycer.ai/guides/review-agent-changes)) |
| Code hosts | GitHub, GitHub Enterprise Server, GitHub Enterprise Cloud with data residency ([Code Review](https://code.claude.com/docs/en/code-review)) | GitHub (generally available); GitLab merge requests in preview ([code review](https://learn.chatgpt.com/docs/code-review)) | Any git repository |
| Security pass | `/security-review` in your session ([commands](https://code.claude.com/docs/en/commands)) | `@codex security review`, research preview ([GitHub](https://learn.chatgpt.com/docs/third-party/github)) | Ask the reviewing agent |
| Speed | Most reviews 6 to 10 minutes at GA, down from about 20 ([GA post](https://claude.com/resources/articles/code-review-is-now-generally-available)) | Not documented | Depends on the agents |
| Spend controls | Monthly Code Review spend limit, organization limit, analytics dashboard ([costs](https://code.claude.com/docs/en/code-review-costs)) | Plan usage limits; ChatGPT credits extend usage ([pricing](https://learn.chatgpt.com/docs/pricing)) | Each vendor's own |
| Data restrictions | Not available with ZDR, the HIPAA configuration or CMEK; not under the BAA ([Code Review](https://code.claude.com/docs/en/code-review)) | Not documented on the review pages; check your workspace's data controls | Each vendor's own |

**Where Claude Code Review is stronger:** depth and verification on every PR without CI files, per-repository review levels, GitHub Enterprise Server, organization spend caps and analytics, and a check run that never blocks a merge.

**Where Codex code review is stronger:** cost for individuals and small teams (included from Plus at $20), a P0 and P1 signal in GitHub, `@codex fix` in the same pull request, local `/review` and `codex review` for scripts, and GitLab merge requests in preview.

## The third option: have a second agent review the first agent's work

A second-agent review means the agent that reviews isn't the one that wrote the code, and ideally runs a different vendor's model. It's useful when one vendor's agent wrote the change and you want a reviewer with different training and different blind spots.

Three officially documented ways to do it yourself:

- **The Codex plugin for Claude Code.** OpenAI's plugin adds `/codex:review`, "a normal read-only Codex review" that "gives you the same quality of code review as running `/review` inside Codex directly," and `/codex:adversarial-review`, "a steerable challenge review" that questions design choices, tradeoffs and failure modes. It needs a ChatGPT subscription (including Free) or an OpenAI API key, and its usage counts toward your Codex limits ([codex-plugin-cc](https://github.com/openai/codex-plugin-cc)).
- **Claude reviewing Codex's branch.** Run `/code-review main...my-feature` in Claude Code on the branch Codex wrote ([local review](https://code.claude.com/docs/en/code-review-local)).
- **Codex reviewing Claude Code's branch.** Run `codex review --base main` on the branch Claude Code wrote ([CLI reference](https://learn.chatgpt.com/docs/cli/reference)).

The costs are real. You manage two sets of usage limits. You carry each finding back to the agent that wrote the code, by hand. And if both agents work in one checkout, the reviewer can trip over the author's uncommitted changes.

### Steps

1. Build the change with agent A on its own branch or worktree.
2. Start agent B, from a different vendor if you can, read-only on the same branch.
3. Ask B for prioritized findings against the base branch.
4. Send the findings you confirm back to A, with the file and line.
5. Re-run B's review on A's fixes.
6. Run tests, open the PR, and let a human make the merge call.

## Where this fits among AI code review tools

Dedicated review products such as CodeRabbit, Greptile, GitHub Copilot code review and Cursor Bugbot are a separate category, and this page doesn't rank them. What's new: the vendors behind the coding agents now ship their own reviewers, so a team already paying for Claude or ChatGPT can review agent-written PRs without adding another vendor.

## Doing a second-agent review in Traycer

Traycer doesn't replace Claude Code Review or Codex review. It takes the manual work out of the do-it-yourself option above. You start a reviewer from a different vendor in the same window as the agent that wrote the change, and **Send to chat** hands each finding back to that agent, so you don't carry it across by hand. Each agent still uses its own plan and limits.

Traycer is an open source (MIT) desktop app "for running Claude Code, Codex, Cursor and other AI coding agents in parallel, with shared plans and code review" ([docs](https://docs.traycer.ai/), [repo](https://github.com/traycerai/traycer)). It runs on Mac, Windows and Linux, with mobile apps for iOS and Android ([install](https://docs.traycer.ai/install), [mobile app](https://docs.traycer.ai/account/mobile-app)). It supports 22 coding agents, including Claude Code and Codex ([coding agents](https://docs.traycer.ai/agents-and-models/coding-agents)). Traycer is SOC 2 Type 2 certified.

The documented review flow ([Review agent changes](https://docs.traycer.ai/guides/review-agent-changes)):

1. **See the change.** A turn that changed files ends with a **Changes** card. **Review all** opens every file the agent changed in one diff.
2. **Start a reviewer.** Start a new agent on the same folder or worktree (**Existing worktree**), for example Codex on the branch Claude Code wrote.
3. **Get a written review.** Run `$traycer-review Review the changes on this branch.` It writes a review artifact with prioritized findings. For a large change, `$traycer-changeset-walkthrough` writes a guide to what changed and the order to review it in.
4. **Send fixes back.** In the review artifact, select a finding, click **Send to chat** and pick the agent that made the change. Or comment on the findings and ask the agent to address the open threads ([Comments](https://docs.traycer.ai/panels/comments)).
5. **Roll back what you don't want.** Undo one file, one turn (**Undo**, then **Restore**) or everything (**Undo all**) ([Undo a turn](https://docs.traycer.ai/panels/agents/undo-a-turn)).
6. **Follow the pull request.** When the agent opens a PR, the **Pull Requests** panel shows its checks and review state, and **Fix in chat** puts a failing check or a review comment into the agent's composer, ready to send ([Pull Requests](https://docs.traycer.ai/panels/pull-requests)).

Review can also happen against the plan. `traycer-execute` starts one child agent per ticket and "reviews each batch against the plan," and `traycer-autobuild` pairs a builder agent with "a separate evaluator agent" ([artifact workflow](https://docs.traycer.ai/concepts/artifact-workflow)). Agents can message each other to get a review, too. On the Chat interface every coding agent can send and receive. On the Terminal interface only Claude Code has an inbox ([agent-to-agent](https://docs.traycer.ai/concepts/agent-to-agent)).

Traycer is free for individuals with your own agents. The Sync plan, for sharing Tasks with a whole team, is $20 per user per month, or $16 billed yearly ([pricing](https://docs.traycer.ai/account/pricing)). The Traycer homepage lists 11,000+ developers using Traycer Desktop and 40,000+ Tasks created in it ([traycer.ai](https://traycer.ai/)). For how it compares with other tools for running agents in parallel, see [the best tools to run coding agents in parallel](https://traycer.ai/compare/best-parallel-coding-agent-tools).

## Which should you choose?

**A Claude Team or Enterprise organization on GitHub.** Use Claude Code Review at Standard, set Deep on critical repositories, and set a monthly spend limit first.

**A solo developer or small team on ChatGPT Plus or Pro.** Turn on Codex automatic review and use `/review` locally before you push.

**A team running Claude Code and Codex side by side.** Run one managed reviewer on the PR, and a cross-vendor second-agent review before you open it. If you run several agents in parallel, Traycer keeps the author agent, the reviewer and the PR's checks in one Task, and its iOS and Android apps let you follow the review from your phone.

**An organization on Zero Data Retention, HIPAA or CMEK.** Claude Code Review isn't available. Use `/code-review` locally or Claude in your own CI, and check Codex's data controls for your workspace before you turn on cloud reviews.

## FAQ

### Is Codex or Claude better at code review?

Neither wins outright. Claude Code Review runs several agents and verifies findings before posting, with Quick, Standard and Deep levels, but only on Claude Team and Enterprise. Codex flags only P0 and P1 issues in GitHub and is included from ChatGPT Plus. You can also have one review the other's work.

### Does a Claude code review cost money?

The managed Code Review service is billed on token usage through usage credits, separately from your plan, and has no flat per-review price. Anthropic's March 2026 launch post said reviews generally averaged $15 to $25. Running `/code-review` in your own Claude Code session counts toward your normal plan usage.

### How much does it cost to run a Claude Code Ultra review?

Pro and Max accounts get three free Ultrareview runs, once. After that a review typically costs $5 to $25 in usage credits, depending on the size of the change, and Claude Code shows an estimated cost before each run.

### How do I get Codex to review in GitHub?

Connect the repository to Codex, turn on Automatic review in Codex settings, or comment `@codex review` on a pull request. Codex reacts with 👀 and posts a review. It needs a ChatGPT plan (Plus or higher, or Business or Enterprise), not an API key.

### What does Codex review do?

In GitHub it reviews the pull-request diff, follows `AGENTS.md` review rules, and posts a standard review that flags only P0 and P1 issues. Locally, `/review` reports prioritized findings on your branch, uncommitted changes or a commit without changing your working tree.

### What is the best way to review AI-generated code?

Start from the task's intent, require tests and checks to pass, review the risky paths first (auth, data writes, migrations), add an independent reviewer that didn't write the code, and keep a human approval as the merge gate.

### Can one coding agent review another agent's code?

Yes. OpenAI's Codex plugin for Claude Code adds `/codex:review` and `/codex:adversarial-review`. In Traycer you can start a Codex agent on Claude Code's worktree, run a review, and send each finding back to the agent that wrote the code.

### What is a code review agent?

An AI agent that reads a code change with the surrounding code, looks for bugs or risks, and reports findings, usually as comments on a pull request. Claude Code Review and Codex code review are two examples, and so is any coding agent you ask to review another's work.

[Run a second agent's review on your next agent-written PR: download Traycer Desktop, free and open source (MIT).](https://traycer.ai/download)