Website profiles · Technology insights · Alternatives

coderabbit.ai Paid content

Categories: Artificial Intelligence

AI-first pull request reviewer with context-aware feedback, line-by-line code suggestions, and real-time chat.

Visit website

Updated: 2026-09-24 02:24 Language: English (default) Access: Normal

Profile views 4 Outbound visits 0
CodeRabbit Full homepage screenshot
Editorial Review

Website Review

What is CodeRabbit?

CodeRabbit is an AI-first pull request reviewer. It plugs into your Git workflow (GitHub and GitLab are named in its keywords) and comments on pull requests the way a human reviewer would: line-by-line suggestions, context-aware feedback, and a chat interface where you can ask follow-up questions about a change.

What that looks like in practice

The clearest picture comes from the page's own example: a diff adding an invitation API and emails. Alongside the code, a comment explains that a permission helper is restricted to org admins. That is the flavour of output — not just "this line changed" but an explanation of intent and a check on whether the rule the code claims to enforce is actually enforced.

A typical reader scenario: you open a PR that adds canInviteMembers to a permissions file and a new invitationService.ts. Before a teammate looks at it, the tool has already flagged the admin-only gate, summarised the endpoints, and offered a suggested edit. A human reviewer then spends their attention on design questions instead of spotting that a role check is missing.

Who it suits

  • Teams with more pull requests than reviewers, where review latency is the bottleneck.
  • Maintainers of open-source or internal repos who want a first pass before humans arrive.
  • Engineering leads who want review comments to be consistent rather than dependent on who happens to be on duty.

It suits teams less well if your changes are mostly prose, design docs or configuration, or if reviewers already keep up comfortably — an extra automated commenter then adds noise rather than removing it.

Trade-offs to weigh

Consideration What to expect
Speed vs. judgement Fast first-pass feedback; architectural and product decisions still need people
Volume Line-level comments can be noisy on large diffs unless you tune the scope
Fit Most useful in Git-based, pull-request-centric workflows
Cost A free trial and paid plans are signalled; check current terms yourself

Next step

Run it on one repository for two weeks and compare two numbers: time from PR open to first substantive human comment, and how often its suggestions are accepted. The page cites a customer case study reporting roughly 70% suggestion acceptance and 30% time savings across about 50 pull requests per day — treat that as that customer's experience, not a guarantee, and measure your own baseline. If acceptance is low, tighten what it comments on before rolling it out wider.

For context on the surrounding tooling, see GitHub and GitLab.

How does CodeRabbit integrate with GitHub and GitLab for pull request reviews?

CodeRabbit plugs into GitHub and GitLab as an automated reviewer that comments directly on pull requests. Once connected, it reads each PR's diff, surrounding context and repository conventions, then posts line-by-line suggestions and a summary comment in the review thread — the same place a human teammate would. Reviewers can also reply in real time to discuss or challenge a suggestion, so the tool behaves like a participant in the PR conversation rather than a separate dashboard.

The page's own example shows what this looks like in practice: a diff touching permission logic and new invitation endpoints, annotated with line-level commentary and a "Mark viewed" state so a human can track what they have already read. That is the core integration pattern — the AI annotates the change, the human decides.

What the integration actually requires

  • A repository connection to GitHub or GitLab (the site lists both as supported hosts).
  • Permission for the tool to read pull requests and post review comments.
  • A workflow where the PR is opened normally; the review arrives as comments, not as a separate step you must trigger manually in most setups.

Practical trade-offs

Situation Where it helps most Where a human still matters
High PR volume, small team First-pass triage, catching obvious issues before a person looks Judgement calls on architecture and product intent
Regulated or security-sensitive code Consistent checks on permission and auth changes, as in the invitation example Final sign-off and threat modelling
Junior contributors Fast, specific feedback on style and structure Mentorship and context a bot cannot supply

A reasonable next step: connect it to one active repository rather than all of them, let it run for a week, and compare how many of its comments your team accepts. The site cites a case study reporting roughly 70% suggestion acceptance and about 30% time savings across 50 pull requests per day — treat that as one customer's reported result, not a guarantee, and measure your own acceptance rate before rolling it out more widely.

For teams already using hosted review tooling, it is worth comparing against native options such as GitHub pull request reviews and GitLab merge request approvals, since those are where CodeRabbit's comments will appear.

What kind of context-aware feedback and line-by-line suggestions does CodeRabbit provide?

CodeRabbit positions itself as an AI-first pull request reviewer that gives context-aware feedback and line-by-line suggestions, plus real-time chat. The page's own example shows the granularity: on a TypeScript permissions file it walks a diff hunk by hunk, highlighting a small change like an admin-only permission gate, and pairs it with new service and router files for an invitation API. That tells you the feedback is anchored to specific lines and files rather than a single summary comment on the whole PR.

What that means in practice

  • Line-level comments on the diff. Suggestions land next to the changed lines, so a reviewer can accept, discuss or dismiss them without hunting through the PR.
  • Context beyond the diff. The page's framing — "Fast code. Faster chaos." and "Raise the quality bar. Lower the review burden." — points to feedback that considers surrounding code, not just the added lines. The invitation example spans permissions, a service and a router, so related files are part of the picture.
  • Real-time chat. You can ask follow-up questions about a review instead of waiting for another automated pass.

A concrete scenario You open a PR that adds team invitations. The bot flags that canInviteMembers is admin-only and asks whether non-admins should ever invite; you reply in chat that only admins should, and it stops raising the point. Meanwhile it suggests tightening the token generation in the invitation service. You accept the token change and leave the permission logic as is.

Decision criterion If your team's bottleneck is reviewers skimming large diffs, line-anchored suggestions and chat follow-ups are the useful part. If you mainly want a high-level risk summary, the line-by-line detail may feel noisy — check whether the tool lets you tune comment volume before committing.

Next step: open a real PR in a test repo and see whether the comments land where you'd actually want a human reviewer to speak up. Pricing and plan details are on CodeRabbit.

How does CodeRabbit's real-time chat feature work during code reviews?

CodeRabbit's real-time chat works as an interactive layer on top of an automated pull-request review. Rather than only leaving static comments, the reviewer posts context-aware, line-by-line feedback and then lets you reply in the same thread to ask follow-up questions, request clarification or push back on a suggestion. The aim is to resolve review points inside the pull request instead of moving the discussion to a separate chat tool.

In practice, a typical flow looks like this:

  • CodeRabbit reviews the diff and attaches comments to specific lines or files.
  • You reply to a comment with a question, such as asking why a change was flagged or how to rewrite a section.
  • The reviewer responds in-thread with an explanation or a revised suggestion.
  • You accept, adjust or dismiss the suggestion, and the conversation stays attached to the code for anyone else reviewing later.

Where it fits best

Situation Value of in-PR chat
Routine pull requests with small diffs Quick clarification without scheduling a call
Larger refactors or security-sensitive changes Keeps reasoning next to the exact lines being changed
Teams spread across time zones Asynchronous back-and-forth instead of waiting for a live meeting
Junior developers or unfamiliar codebases Explanations turn review comments into lightweight mentoring

Trade-offs to weigh

  • Chat quality depends on context. If the reviewer lacks surrounding project knowledge, answers may need a human to confirm them.
  • Too many threads can clutter a pull request; it helps to resolve conversations once a point is settled.
  • It complements, rather than replaces, human judgment on architecture, product intent and team conventions.
  • Setup matters: the tool connects to your Git hosting, so permissions and repository access should be reviewed before rolling it out broadly.

A useful next step is to try it on one active repository and compare a week of reviews with your current process. If you already use GitHub or GitLab, GitHub or GitLab will be where the chat threads appear. You can also read CodeRabbit's own pricing and plan pages at CodeRabbit to see which tier includes review chat.

What are the pricing plans and free trial options for CodeRabbit?

CodeRabbit's pricing page is the authoritative source for current plan names, seat costs and trial length, so treat any figures below as a starting point and confirm them at CodeRabbit before budgeting. What the site does make clear is that there is a free trial path and a paid tier structure, and that plans are aimed at teams reviewing pull requests rather than at individual hobby projects.

H3 What the plans generally cover

  • A free trial to evaluate review quality on your own repositories before committing.
  • Paid plans that scale by developer or seat, with the review engine, line-by-line suggestions and real-time chat as the core offering.
  • Organization-level features such as permissions and invitation management, which the page shows as admin-gated rather than available to every member.

H3 How to choose

Situation Sensible starting point
Solo developer testing the workflow Free trial on one repository
Small team wanting review relief Entry paid tier, seat-based
Organization needing access control Plan that includes admin permission gates and invitations

H3 A practical next step

Pick two or three representative pull requests, including one security-sensitive change and one large refactor, and run them through the trial. Judge the tool on the ratio of useful comments to noise, not on volume. The permissions excerpt on the page — where canInviteMembers and canRemoveMember are restricted to admins — is a reasonable signal that access control is treated as a first-class concern; check whether your plan exposes that level of control before you roll it out beyond a pilot group.

How does CodeRabbit compare to manual code reviews in terms of time savings and suggestion acceptance?

CodeRabbit targets the review bottleneck rather than the coding step: it reads pull requests, comments line by line, and lets reviewers discuss changes in a chat thread. Compared with manual review, the main difference is where time goes. Manual review spends senior-engineer hours on first-pass checks — style, obvious bugs, missing tests, permission gates. CodeRabbit automates that first pass so humans spend their time on design, trade-offs and domain logic. The trade-off is trust: an AI reviewer can flag things that don't matter or miss context a teammate would catch, so you still need a human decision-maker.

Time savings and acceptance, in practice

The page cites a customer case study reporting 70% suggestion acceptance and 30% time savings across 50 pull requests per day. Treat those as one team's reported numbers, not a universal benchmark — acceptance and savings depend on how noisy your codebase is and how much of your review is mechanical. Acceptance rate is the number to watch: high acceptance means suggestions are relevant; low acceptance means reviewers are spending time dismissing noise, which can erase the time saved.

Dimension Manual review CodeRabbit-style AI review
First-pass checks Human reads every diff Automated line-by-line comments
Senior time Spent on style and obvious bugs Redirected to design and risk
Speed Limited by reviewer availability Immediate, but needs human sign-off
Consistency Varies by reviewer Uniform rules, but can miss context
Best fit Small teams, high-context changes High PR volume, repetitive patterns

A concrete scenario

A team merging dozens of PRs a day, like the invitation-API example on the page — endpoints, token generation, an admin-only permission gate — can let CodeRabbit flag the permission check and missing tests first, then have one human confirm the security model. That keeps the permission decision with a person while removing the mechanical scan.

Next step: run it on a sample of recent PRs and measure suggestion acceptance and reviewer time before and after. If acceptance is high and reviewers stop re-checking the same issues, expand; if reviewers are dismissing most comments, tighten the rules or narrow the scope. You can see the approach at CodeRabbit and compare options such as GitHub's built-in review tools if you already live in that ecosystem.

Related questions

More questions →
What Is GitHub and How Is It Used for Open-Source Projects?

GitHub is a web platform for hosting Git repositories and collaborating on code. For open-source projects like mailcow, it serves as the place where source code lives, releases are published, bugs are reported, and contributions are reviewed. You can use GitHub without writing any code — browsing a project's repository, reading its changelog, or filing a bug report are all legitimate uses. The one thing to keep straight up front: Git is the version-control tool that tracks changes to files, while GitHub is a hosting and collaboration service built around Git. You can use Git without GitHub, and GitHub hosts projects that use Git.

The core concepts you'll actually encounter

Concept What it is Why it matters to you
Repository ("repo") A project's folder plus its full change history The single place to find source, docs, and releases
Commit A saved snapshot of changes with a message Lets you see what changed and when
Branch A parallel line of development Where new work happens before it's merged
Pull request (PR) A proposed set of changes, open for review How outside contributors submit fixes or features
Issue A tracked bug report, question, or task Where problems get reported and discussed
Release A tagged, packaged version of the project What you download or upgrade to

A repository's history is a chain of commits. Branches let people work on changes without disturbing the main line. When a change is ready, it's proposed as a pull request, reviewed, and merged. Issues are the separate track for problems and discussion — they aren't code, but they often drive it.

Finding a project's source, releases, and changelog

For a project like mailcow, the repository is the authoritative source for what's in a given version. A practical path:

  1. Open the project's repository page. The file listing and README are the front door — the README usually states what the project is and how to install it.
  2. Check the Releases section (often a link in the sidebar) to see tagged versions. Release notes typically list component version bumps and security fixes. mailcow's own blog, for example, publishes entries such as "Mootember 2026 | Unbound 1.26.1, SOGo 5.12.11 & Redis 7.4.11" and "Mooly 2026 | Postfix 3.10.12, Rspamd 4.1.0 & Nginx 1.30.3," each tied to a dated update release.
  3. Look for a CHANGELOG file or a changelog link. This is where you confirm exactly which component versions and fixes landed in a release.
  4. Use the commits view when you need to know when something changed, not just that it changed.

This matters when you're deciding whether to upgrade. A release note that says it "addresses several security-related issues" and "strongly recommend[s] updating" is a different signal than a routine dependency bump.

Reporting a bug or contributing a change

The workflow is the same across most projects:

  • Before filing an issue, search existing issues. Duplicates get closed, and the answer may already be there.
  • When filing, include what you did, what you expected, and what happened — plus version numbers. For a Docker-based project, that means the image or release version and relevant logs.
  • To contribute code, the usual path is: fork the repository, create a branch, make commits, push, then open a pull request against the upstream project. Maintainers review, request changes, and merge.

You don't need commit access to any of this. Forking and pull requests exist precisely so outside contributors can propose changes without direct write access to the main repository.

GitHub vs. Git, in one example

Say you want to fix a typo in a project's documentation. Git, running on your machine, records your edit as a commit and tracks the branch you made it on. GitHub is where you push that branch and open a pull request so the maintainers can see and merge it. Git did the version tracking; GitHub did the hosting and the collaboration. If you only ever browse a project's releases or read its issues, you're using GitHub and never touching Git directly — which is fine.

Where this leaves you

If your goal is to use a project like mailcow, you mainly need the Releases and changelog views to pick and verify a version. If your goal is to report or fix something, you need issues and pull requests. And if you're trying to understand what changed between two versions, commits and release notes are the record — not the marketing page.

How to Convert a Code Snippet into a Shareable Image with ray.so

ray.so turns a code snippet into a styled image you can export and share. Paste your code into the editor, pick a theme and window style, adjust the layout, then export the rendered result as an image. This works best for short snippets you want to post on social media, in docs, or in chat — not for long files, since the image grows with the code.

Before you start

  • Have the code snippet ready to paste, and know which language it's in so the highlighting matches.
  • Decide where the image will live (a post, a slide, a README). That tells you whether you want a background, a light or dark window, and how much padding.
  • Keep the snippet short. A few dozen lines read well as an image; hundreds do not.

Step-by-step

1. Paste or type your code

Put the snippet into the editor. Check that the syntax highlighting matches your language — keywords, strings, and comments should be colored, not flat text. If the colors look wrong, the language isn't being detected correctly; adjust it before you style anything else, since the theme you pick later depends on it.

2. Choose a color theme

Pick from the available syntax color themes. This controls how the code itself is colored. Choose one with enough contrast that the code stays readable when the image is scaled down in a feed or a slide.

3. Toggle the window and background

  • Dark or light window — switches the frame around your code between a dark and light appearance.
  • Background — show or hide the colored background behind the window.

If you're posting on a light page, a light window with no background blends in; a dark window with a background stands out. Match this to where the image will appear.

4. Adjust padding, line numbers, and window controls

  • Padding — the space around the code inside the frame. More padding gives a calmer, more presentable image; less padding fits more code.
  • Line numbers — turn them on if you or your readers need to reference specific lines; turn them off for a cleaner look.
  • Window controls — the traffic-light buttons on the frame. Keep them for a familiar editor look, or hide them for a more neutral image.

5. Export the image

Export the rendered snippet as an image and let the file download. Before you post it, open the downloaded file and check:

  • The code isn't clipped at the edges.
  • Highlighting is present and correct.
  • The background is the one you intended (not blank or missing).
  • Text is still legible at the size it will be displayed.

Common export problems and fixes

Problem Likely cause Fix
Code is clipped at the edges Padding too small or the snippet is too wide Increase padding, shorten long lines, or split the snippet
No syntax highlighting Language not detected or set correctly Set the language so keywords and strings are colored
Blank or missing background Background toggled off, or the export didn't finish Toggle the background back on and re-export
Image looks cramped when shared Too many lines for the frame Trim the snippet to the essential lines
Colors hard to read Low-contrast theme Switch to a theme with stronger contrast

When this is the right tool

Use ray.so when you want a single, self-contained image of a short snippet that looks polished without design work. Skip it when the code is long, when readers need to copy and run it (share a gist or repo instead), or when you need the code to stay searchable and accessible as text.

How Does AI with Frozen Semen Work When Breeding a Connemara Pony?

Artificial insemination (AI) with frozen semen lets you breed a Connemara mare to a stallion that may be standing hundreds or thousands of miles away — or no longer alive. The trade-off is that frozen semen demands much tighter management than natural cover or fresh/chilled semen. In practice, you need a veterinarian experienced in equine reproduction, precise monitoring of the mare's cycle, and realistic expectations about success rates. This article walks through what actually happens, step by step, and helps you judge whether AI is the right route for your breeding plan.

What "AI with frozen semen" actually means

AI is simply placing semen into the mare's reproductive tract by instrument rather than by natural cover. The semen itself comes in three broad forms:

  • Fresh: collected and used within hours.
  • Chilled: extended and shipped, typically used within 24–48 hours.
  • Frozen: processed with cryoprotectants and stored in liquid nitrogen, potentially for years.

Frozen semen is the most logistically flexible and the most biologically demanding. The freezing and thawing process kills a large proportion of sperm cells, and the survivors have a shorter functional lifespan in the mare's tract than fresh sperm. That is the single most important fact to understand before you commit.

The basic steps, in order

1. Confirm the mare is a suitable candidate

Before anything else, a reproductive examination is worthwhile. A vet typically checks:

  • General health and body condition
  • Reproductive tract via ultrasound and/or speculum exam
  • Cervical and uterine status
  • Any history of previous foaling or breeding problems
  • Uterine culture or cytology if infection is suspected

Older mares, mares with a history of endometritis, or mares that have never conceived are all higher-risk. This does not rule them out, but it changes the odds and the level of veterinary input required.

2. Source the frozen semen

Frozen Connemara semen is available from some studs and via semen banks, though the pool is smaller than in warmblood or Thoroughbred breeding. When enquiring, ask for:

  • Stallion registration details and studbook
  • Number of doses available per breeding
  • Post-thaw motility figures (a quality indicator, not a guarantee)
  • Breeding contract terms, including live foal guarantees if offered
  • Shipping and storage arrangements for the liquid nitrogen dewar

If you are breeding for a registered Connemara foal, check the relevant studbook's rules on AI and on frozen semen specifically. Registration bodies differ in what they accept and what documentation they require from the stallion owner.

3. Monitor the mare's cycle closely

This is where frozen semen differs most from natural cover. Because thawed sperm survive only a short time, insemination must happen very close to ovulation — often within a window of roughly 12 to 24 hours before or around ovulation, depending on the protocol your vet uses.

Typical monitoring involves:

  • Teasing with a stallion or a reliable teaser to detect oestrus
  • Ultrasound scanning every 24–48 hours once the mare is in season
  • Tracking follicle size to predict imminent ovulation
  • Possible ovulation induction with a hormone injection to tighten the timing

Some vets also use deep-horn or hysteroscopic insemination, which places a small volume of semen directly at the tip of the uterine horn. This can improve results with low-dose or poor-quality frozen samples, but it requires specialised equipment and skill.

4. Thaw and inseminate

Thawing follows the semen processor's instructions exactly — usually a specific water bath temperature and time. Deviating from the protocol damages sperm. The insemination itself is quick and is performed by the vet.

5. Post-breeding management

Depending on the mare's history, the vet may recommend:

  • Oxytocin treatment to help clear fluid from the uterus
  • Anti-inflammatory medication
  • A post-breeding scan to confirm ovulation and check for fluid

Pregnancy is normally confirmed by ultrasound around 14–16 days after ovulation, with a follow-up check later to monitor the pregnancy.

Why timing is the hard part

With natural cover, sperm can remain viable in the mare for a day or more, so a slightly mistimed breeding still has a chance. With frozen semen, that buffer largely disappears. If you inseminate too early, the sperm are gone before the egg arrives. Too late, and the egg has already aged.

This is why frozen semen breeding is often described as a timing exercise as much as a fertility one. It also explains why success rates vary so widely between mares, cycles, and clinics. Published per-cycle pregnancy rates for frozen semen in horses are generally lower than for fresh or chilled semen, and outcomes depend heavily on mare fertility, semen quality, and the skill of the team managing the cycle.

Practical considerations before you decide

Factor Frozen semen AI Natural cover
Stallion location Anywhere; semen shipped and stored Stallion must be physically available
Timing precision required Very high Moderate
Veterinary involvement Essential, often intensive Often minimal
Cost structure Semen purchase + storage + repeated vet visits Stud fee + transport/boarding
Mare stress Multiple handling and scans Usually less
Flexibility if mare doesn't conceive Can repeat in later cycles with stored doses Depends on stallion access
Suitability for subfertile mares Possible but harder Also harder, but more forgiving on timing

Questions to ask yourself

  • Do I have a vet with equine reproduction experience nearby? Without one, frozen semen AI is impractical.
  • Can I commit to frequent scanning appointments? Cycles can require several visits over a few days.
  • Is the stallion I want only available frozen? If a suitable stallion is available fresh or chilled, that is usually the easier path.
  • What does the studbook require? Confirm AI and frozen semen are accepted and what paperwork is needed.
  • What is my budget for a possibly repeated process? Frozen semen breeding can take more than one cycle.

When AI makes sense — and when it doesn't

AI with frozen semen is a reasonable choice when:

  • The stallion you want is geographically distant, deceased, or in heavy competition
  • You want to preserve genetics from a specific pony
  • Natural cover is impossible for health, safety, or management reasons
  • You have access to good reproductive veterinary care

It is a poor fit when:

  • No experienced equine vet is available
  • The mare has known fertility problems and you want the easiest route
  • You cannot manage the monitoring schedule
  • A suitable stallion is available locally for natural cover or fresh semen

A realistic way to proceed

  1. Have your mare examined and get an honest assessment of her breeding soundness.
  2. Confirm the studbook's rules on AI and frozen semen.
  3. Contact stallion owners or semen banks and request post-thaw quality data and contract terms.
  4. Line up a reproductive vet before you buy semen, not after.
  5. Plan the breeding for a time of year when you can attend appointments and when the vet's schedule allows.
  6. Budget for more than one cycle, and treat the first attempt as a learning cycle rather than a certainty.

Frozen semen AI is a powerful tool for Connemara breeders, but it rewards preparation far more than improvisation. If you have the veterinary support and the patience for precise timing, it opens up stallion choices you could never access otherwise. If you don't, natural cover or fresh semen will usually be the more straightforward route to a foal.

Website Overview

Page metadata, canonical configuration and social previews work together to provide more consistent search and sharing presentation.

Domain and Registration

Transfer-protection status is present, helping reduce the risk of unauthorized domain transfers. The domain has about 3 years of registration history; its current configuration provides more context than age alone. The registrar is GoDaddy.com, LLC, a widely used domain service provider. Registration contact information is publicly available through RDAP. The domain uses the common .ai extension, which is not an independent safety signal.

DNS and Email

The lowest TTL is 30 seconds, supporting rapid record changes at the cost of more frequent lookups. Nameservers are provided by Cloudflare, indicating managed DNS hosting. MX records point to the Google Workspace email service. SPF and DMARC are configured. DKIM status is unknown. TXT records include verification markers for Google, Apple, Atlassian, Microsoft. Such markers may also remain after a service stops being used.

TLS and Certificates

The certificate uses an RSA 2048-bit public key, offering broad client compatibility. The server supplied a complete certificate chain. No organization name is present in the certificate; the available fields are consistent with domain validation. The certificate was issued by Let's Encrypt, commonly associated with automated certificate services. The certificate's total validity is about 89 days, consistent with a short renewal cycle.

HTTP and Browser Security

CORS permits any origin to read this response. This is common for public resources; sensitive responses need narrower handling. No X-Powered-By header was found, reducing one common source of backend fingerprinting information. All six checked browser-security headers are present. Their effectiveness still depends on the policy values and application behavior. No obvious internal addresses or debug information were found in the headers. The Server header contains the custom value Vercel.

Technology Stack Analysis

The public page identifies Next.js, Vercel without precise versions, leaving fewer clues for version-specific scanning.

Search and Social Sharing

Twitter Card metadata is configured. JSON-LD includes Organization data, helping describe the organization as an entity. The title has 44 characters, within a common display range. A meta description is present, with 110 characters. The observed directives allow indexing and link following.

Hosting and Email

DNSCloudflare
HostingVercel
EmailGoogle Workspace
Location United States flagUnited States 66.33.60.34

User reviews (0)

  • No reviews yet.

Pages, Search and Sharing

Meta descriptionAI-first pull request reviewer with context-aware feedback, line-by-line code suggestions, and real-time chat.
Canonical URLhttps://www.coderabbit.ai
LanguageEnglish (default)
Twitter Cardsummary_large_image
All bots 1 allowed · 2 disallowed
  • Allow/
  • Disallow/api/
  • Disallow/admin/

Registration details RDAP / WHOIS

RegistrarGoDaddy.com, LLC
Registered2023-04-27
Expires2027-04-27
Domain statusclient delete prohibited、client renew prohibited、client transfer prohibited、client update prohibited
Nameserversgeorge.ns.cloudflare.com、josephine.ns.cloudflare.com
DNSSECunsigned

DNS records

TypeNameValueTTLPriority
Acname.vercel-dns.com66.33.60.34300—
Acname.vercel-dns.com76.76.21.164300—
MXcoderabbit.aiaspmx.l.google.com3001
MXcoderabbit.aialt1.aspmx.l.google.com3005
MXcoderabbit.aialt2.aspmx.l.google.com3005
MXcoderabbit.aialt3.aspmx.l.google.com30010
MXcoderabbit.aialt4.aspmx.l.google.com30010
NScoderabbit.aigeorge.ns.cloudflare.com86400—
NScoderabbit.aijosephine.ns.cloudflare.com86400—
TXTcoderabbit.ai1password-site-verification=54RKL22S3FFL3OBT2JTDBQCYG430—
TXTcoderabbit.aiMS=ms1314365030—
TXTcoderabbit.aiMS=ms8424822730—
TXTcoderabbit.aiZOOM_verify_TcT7DAODm3WcSIuADaNEn630—
TXTcoderabbit.aianthropic-domain-verification-kdmweq=xGSxCL17te0W3mUR4RKzyeqr230—
TXTcoderabbit.aiapple-domain-verification=ZKF8T3nhn6z0XJtX30—
TXTcoderabbit.aiatlassian-domain-verification=ae6UvQF9zOUh1yoocH0jsW6ISdAki96KUyvd42avpom6U3IMIpyf2F9X8XYjZ18N30—
TXTcoderabbit.aicursor-domain-verification-shka00=HqwZSUdjGMN04w8bBWTcaccYX30—
TXTcoderabbit.aifirebase=coderabbit30—
TXTcoderabbit.aifirebase=coderabbitprod30—
TXTcoderabbit.aigoogle-site-verification=CvRDMPsmGQy9DpspspcTp6CyNK63CRn5XCeMu55GcfM30—
TXTcoderabbit.aigoogle-site-verification=EIeDMxNbwTi9pJ374hOko9-9V2dHIeSfqg8yojfT_BA30—
TXTcoderabbit.aigoogle-site-verification=GNUBnGass2GXd6wUEmvwt5m3oBgIyeCJXv9uedzaHtg30—
TXTcoderabbit.aigoogle-site-verification=NYXLcCkSe_RMCcxivKZL70hqcq4EdEdOdEJ-yh3NFC430—
TXTcoderabbit.aigoogle-site-verification=UaC2IVc9zR2YkepHyH3LTsS9AbGBtFE6foBFXWsOfGw30—
TXTcoderabbit.aigoogle-site-verification=_P0Fw8KFWsSg7EL6ZN0rDGkVzbH3Gxz_vWETGDBiPIM30—
TXTcoderabbit.aigoogle-site-verification=xgGuUcmHeMZqorvLaAs6EdephTFJHUrA5RNbfz7hMFQ30—
TXTcoderabbit.aigrowsurf=wyv8e530—
TXTcoderabbit.aih1-domain-verification=Ye54xZqFN3M8tZLzFREb7HwR35VFxCHnrh651YMyWxq7EUY530—
TXTcoderabbit.aiopenai-domain-verification=dv-bxUh2thUvnX66EaAd2jtHrxo30—
TXTcoderabbit.aiperplexity-ai-domain-verification-y29hg3=4wqxC3yN2dwVYoViuNIFoexDt30—
TXTcoderabbit.aipylon-domain-verification-va5yxh=gpqZYYJpgapCo8q3I9HfPQZdS30—
TXTcoderabbit.aiv=spf1 include:43613284.spf05.hubspotemail.net include:_spf.firebasemail.com include:_spf.salesforce.com include:_spf.google.com -all30—
CNAMEwww.coderabbit.aicname.vercel-dns.com300—
DMARC_dmarc.coderabbit.aiv=DMARC1; p=reject; rua=mailto:[email protected];300—

TLS and certificates

AssessmentNormal configuration
Supported protocolsTLSv1.2、TLSv1.3
Negotiated protocolTLSv1.3
Certificate subjectwww.coderabbit.ai
IssuerLet's Encrypt
Valid until2026-12-05T01:51 · Remaining when checked: 71 days
Verification detailsCertificate trust: Passed · Hostname match: Passed

HTTP response headers

HeaderValue
content-typetext/html; charset=utf-8
cache-controlpublic, max-age=0, must-revalidate
serverVercel
strict-transport-securitymax-age=63072000; includeSubDomains; preload
content-security-policyframe-ancestors 'self'
x-content-type-optionsnosniff
referrer-policystrict-origin-when-cross-origin
permissions-policycamera=(), microphone=(), geolocation=(), interest-cohort=()
access-control-allow-origin*
set-cookieRedacted

Identified technologies

Next.jsVercel

Recent Updates

  • Website images
  • Screenshots
  • Network details
  • Website Technologies
  • Pages and Search Information
  • TLS and certificates
  • DNS Information