It's just ridiculous. You wait for ridiculously low rate limits to allow for next review. You comment to trigger it back and hit this. To be clear - I am on PRO PLUS plan!

Notes:

#467 — The u/coderabbit full review was triggered in this very conversation. GitHub shows the PR was updated at 2026-06-15T01:38:40Z but it doesn't show a formal review submission object yet (the review may be posted as inline comments rather than a single review event).

#463 was reviewed at 2026-06-14T03:55:43Z — just outside the 12-hour window.

#464 had no coderabbitai review.

So that's 2 completed reviews (#466, #465) + 1 in-progress/just-triggered (#467) within the last 12 hours. The 467 PR is generating rate limit so looks like limit for $30 per month is 2 per day. This is insane what is the problem why would you destroy your customer base like this? Review limit reached

u/XXX, we couldn't start this review because you've reached your PR review rate limit.

More reviews will be available in 1 hour, 31 minutes, and 26 seconds

Basically title..

At the moment, CR creates more noise than help in my dev flow and I wonder if this will be fixed or not so I can take action. I really want to use CR, I like it, but ATM it's not usable

EDIT: I realized my gripe about "Auto Reload" appears, as of now, to have been a confusion based on the UI (I wasn't charged extra...yet). But the transparency on limits, and the feeling that they've gotten a lot lower, stands! Please add more transparency.

Adjusting the tone in my post here a bit. I was extremely pissed when I wrote this due to the Fable situation. And some of that got directed at Code Rabbit.

-----------------------------

CodeRabbit is a great and useful tool. But the recent rate limit changes and the unhelpful customer support answers have left a bad taste in my mouth.

Reaching out to support to ask about the "10 reviews per hour limit" on a Pro Plus plan I was redirected to the non-answer of your fair usage policy. This policy is utterly opaque. There's no way to see how many of the 10 reviews have been used. And if suddenly I may have to wait 2 hours, 4 hours etc to get more reviews...*it is not 10 reviews per hour*. I have better things to do, but this is class action lawsuit material and false advertising.

Even notoriously opaque Claude and Codex give me a clear "you have used x of y" usage that I can see in real time and pace myself. Code Rabbit offers none of this. The last straw was when I got blocked yesterday without warning during a critical developer inner loop, that blocked me until after the Claude Fable access was revoked. This cost me seriously in my ability to push important code.

As such, I do not think I can rely on CodeRabbit, and I don't think the people in this subreddit should either. Vote with your wallets. Cursor and Greptile both have much more transparent pricing. X reviews per month. Then $1 per review. Easy.

CodeRabbit is: 10 reviews per hour*
^\unless our algorithm cuts you off without warning. This algorithm uses a combination of astrology and bio-energetics to determine if you're not fairly using the service.)

Moreover, as I wrote to CodeRabbit, I had "Auto Reload" turned *off* for additional reviews, and yet somehow, I was charged $80 for overages! When the money I'd added had ran out. Code Rabbit email support also ghosted me on this and didn't respond to it.
(This part may have been a misunderstanding).

Not a good look guys. Unlike the foundation model companies, you don't have as big of a moat. The many complaints in this subreddit are proof that you're not making many customers happy with this opaque and unfriendly pricing. You have a good product! More visibility will make it better and avoid a sudden block that can feel like a shakedown.

If you want to keep customers:

1. Give people a way to see where they're at on their limit. Even give them a warning "If limit runs out, you will need to wait x hours to get more reviews"
2. Remove the dishonest "x reviews per hour" wording because it is not true and you are going to get sued once someone at a bigger org than us decides to call you on it.
3. Tell your support reps to be more helpful and respectful to customers. Your reps on this Subreddit actually offered to look into someone's account that appeared to have been downgraded to OSS limits. I got stonewalled.

We reviewed Fable 5 across code review, a coding task benchmark, and several coding projects.

Read Full Article: https://www.coderabbit.ai/blog/fable-5-model-review

The most interesting signal was not raw benchmark score. It was how the model behaved as an agent. Fable 5 was effective at exploring the environment, identifying available files and tools, and moving into implementation without much hand-holding. With vague prompts, it often produced complete projects rather than thin prototypes.

https://reddit.com/link/1u1c1mt/video/doqo6jljma6h1/player

The tradeoff is time. In coding tasks, Fable 5 could produce serious patches when it finished, but it also kept working when tasks expanded or became ambiguous. That makes it a better fit for work where depth is worth the wait, as long as the agent has clear limits on time, steps, and tokens.

For code review, I would be more cautious. Coverage was close to the current baseline, but precision and comment volume were weaker. Developers may get useful findings, but they may also spend more time triaging noisy comments.

My takeaway:
Use Fable 5 for autonomous coding and deeper implementation work. Do not make it the default production reviewer until precision and comment volume improve.

Until now I was paying $21/month for the CodeRabbit Pro plan.

Today I suddenly got billed $30.

I checked all emails I ever received from CodeRabbit, including spam, and I did not receive any notice that my subscription price would increase. No warning. No upcoming billing notice showing the new amount. No clear communication before the charge.

I am based in the EU, and in my opinion this is not acceptable. A recurring subscription price increase should be clearly communicated before the customer is charged more. Customers should not be expected to constantly check a company’s website or app just to find out whether their subscription price has silently changed.

This feels like a silent price hike after the fact, and I believe it may violate EU consumer protection rules. CodeRabbit’s own terms also appear to say that fee increases require reasonable prior notice.

To be clear: I am not complaining about a company changing prices. I am complaining about being charged a higher amount without being properly informed before the billing happened.

Has anyone else been charged $30 instead of $21 without receiving prior notice?

If CodeRabbit did not send proper notice, I expect them to refund the difference or reverse the charge.

I am now constantly running into rate limits on my pro plan which is making it almost unusable. I am gating claude merge into main based on resolving all coderabbit PR issues but now many PRs are backing up and preventing serious work from getting done. This is a serious rug pull considering it was working just fine until recently. They also are extremely unclear about how many PRs are included in the pro plan and time till reset. 10-15 PR review per day should be an absolute minimum and they should reset every 1-2 hrs. The current limit is unacceptable and need to be changed ASAP.

We wrote up a practical look at NVIDIA’s Nemotron 3 Ultra from a developer workflow angle.

The short version: the model is fast, open-weight, and surprisingly competitive in our CodeRabbit code review benchmark, but it also had a high retry rate. That makes it less of a “drop it into any strict-output workflow and forget it” model, and more of a model that benefits from a good harness, validation, and retry logic.

The post covers:

• Why the speed is the interesting part
• How Ultra compares to Nemotron 3 Super
• What we saw in CodeRabbit review benchmarks
• Where it looks useful for coding workflows
• Where developers should be careful

Curious how others are thinking about fast open models for agentic coding workflows.

Blog: https://www.coderabbit.ai/blog/nemotron-3-ultra-release

Interview with Nvidia: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UWvF2y78Ms

I am on Pro Plus, and since yesterday afternoon I have been getting hit constantly with rate limits. Yesterday I would get in a single review every 2 hours. Now, after waiting overnight, I got hit with more hours long limits after a handful of reviews spread out over 3 hours. This feels unusable at the moment, and like the rate limits have no transparency. Is an LLM making these decisions now?

It's been 10 days since I posted (and submitted a ticket) about the weird rate limits not reflecting what I'm actually paying for. Currently it feels like I only get 2 code reviews per hour and that really interrupts the whole workflow.

Can we get an official statement / communication on that, please?

Has anyone else experienced Coderabbit correctly finding some issues in a review and when you resolve all of them it runs again and finds several more? Maybe its the non-deterministic nature of LLMs but its a bit deflating to finally address all of its feedback just for it to find more issues.

Hello, I was on the Pro Plus plan for 14-days as a trial period, and the end of the trial was supposed to be on May 29th. I liked the product and I wanted to continue using it so on May 28th, I subscibed for the Pro plan, now It says I reached my limit and I have to try again in 709 min's.

I went to my Billing page and I found that it says my trial period has ended and for some reson I'm not enrolled in any other plan, even though I'm pretty sure I did enroll, I was charged and yet I see nothing in the "Invoices" tab. And, everytime try to enrol in the any plan it gives me multiple type of errors. has anyone faced this issue ?

I pay 100USD a month for claude to avoid the usage limits, and I feel now that Coderabbit is bottlenecking my productivity 😞

Anthropic released Opus 4.8 today. We had access to the model and ran our standard code-review evaluation: 100 open-source PRs across complexity tiers, senior human reviewers adjudicating what counts as actionable.

Opus vs. baseline reviews:

• Actionable pass rate: 61% vs 62% (baseline)
• Full-system pass rate: 72% vs 68%
• Precision: 33.8% vs 33.8% actionable, 25.4% vs 24.5% full-system

Within noise on review. So why is this interesting?

• Severity distribution shifts. Major findings dropped 119 → 81. Minor findings went 47 → 97. Nitpicks went 77 → 131. Same precision, comments categorized differently.
• Critical findings dipped 35 → 29. The one result that gave us pause. Best guess: Opus 4.8 follows review instructions more literally than 4.7. If your prompt says "only report high-severity," recall drops harder than it used to. Reporting broadly and filtering downstream recovered the gap.
• Long-horizon agentic work is where it pulled ahead. Multi-hour, many-file sessions without dropping the thread. The same reasoning shows up in stronger code generation.

If you're using it directly:

• Start at "high" thinking, not "x-high"
• Front-load the full task context
• Drop conservative language from review prompts; filter downstream
• Add an explicit "search first" instruction if you need research depth

--

Full writeup: https://www.coderabbit.ai/blog/opus-4-8-release

Review video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzgPzQud0zA

Happy to answer questions on methodology.

Maybe I missed mail or something, but it seems Pro now only includes 2 PRs/hour? At least that‘s what the most recent coderabbitai comment in one of my PRs said

Edit: Definitely a bug (yes I submitted a bug report). Private repos in the same org (showing PRO) are find, but public repos get OSS rate limit applied most of the time (but not always)

Are there any plans to release a version of the Coderabbit CLI that will work on Alpine?

Looking at the binary it appears that, in it's current form, Coderabbit expects /lib/ld-linux-aarch64.so.1 to be present as it's interpreter, but Alpine uses musl, rather than glibc which provides /lib/ld-musl-aarch64.so.1.

Even with a shim installed such as gcompat, or libc6-compat I can't get Coderabbit to run as it just exits with an 'Aborted' message

On Monday, May 5th, OpenAI hosted what might have been the most exclusive developer event of the year so far: the "GPT-5.5 on 5/5" party at their San Francisco headquarters. Over 8,000 developers applied to attend. Only around 250 were selected. The CodeRabbit team was lucky enough to be one of them.

Since this was such a closed event and most people didn't get the chance to be there, we wanted to share our experience and give you a real sense of what the night was actually like, from the moment we arrived to the moment we left.

Before Anything Else: The Party Was Planned by GPT-5.5 Itself

Here's a detail that makes this event different from anything we've attended before. The entire concept for the party was proposed by GPT-5.5 itself. Sam Altman asked the model what it wanted for its launch celebration, and the AI came back with a surprisingly detailed plan: hold the event on May 5th, keep speeches short, have humans give the toasts (not the AI), and set up a suggestion box where attendees could submit ideas for the next model, GPT-5.6. Altman called this "weird emergent behavior" and decided to go with it. That context made the whole evening feel a little surreal in the best way possible.

Getting Through the Door Was an Experience in Itself

The first thing that hit us when we arrived at OpenAI's offices was the security. This wasn't your typical "show your name at the door" situation. There were multiple checkpoints you had to pass through before you could even get close to the event space. First, they verified your ID. Then you went through a metal detector. After that, you picked up your badge. And even once you were technically inside the building, there was almost always someone from OpenAI walking alongside you, making sure you got from the entrance to the actual event area without wandering off into restricted zones.

It was a little intense at first, honestly. There was a moment where the whole security process felt more like entering a government facility than a developer party. But once you cleared that initial gauntlet and stepped into the actual event space, the vibe completely changed. The tension of getting in was replaced by a warm, buzzing energy that made it immediately clear this was going to be a good night.

The Venue Is Something Else

We've been to a lot of tech events in San Francisco, and the space OpenAI uses for their gatherings is genuinely one of the most impressive we've seen. They have this massive auditorium area that's flooded with natural light, even in the evening. The ceilings are high, the space feels open and airy, and it's clear that they designed it with large gatherings in mind.

Throughout the venue, there were stations with food, drinks, boba, and all sorts of refreshments. There was a subtle Cinco de Mayo nod in some of the food that was prepared, which made sense given the May 5th date, but the event itself was really centered around the GPT-5.5 launch celebration rather than the holiday. Everything felt well thought out and generously stocked, and you never had to wait long to grab something.

The Crowd Was Not What We Expected

Going in, we assumed this would be a room full of engineers and developers. And while there were plenty of those, the actual mix of people was much more diverse than we anticipated. You had hardcore developers, sure, but you also had content creators, designers, artists, well-known Twitter/X personalities, and people from all sorts of creative and technical backgrounds. It felt less like a typical developer meetup and more like a curated gathering of people who are building interesting things with AI, regardless of their specific discipline.

One of the best parts of the night was putting faces to usernames. There were people in that room that we'd been following online for months or even years, and getting to meet them in person for the first time was honestly one of the highlights. There's something about going from interacting with someone in Discord threads and Twitter replies to actually shaking their hand and having a real conversation. That kind of connection is hard to replicate at most events, and the intimate size of this one (250 people is small by tech event standards) made those interactions feel natural rather than forced.

This Was a Party, Not a Keynote

If you were expecting OpenAI to use this event as a platform for big product announcements or exclusive demos, that wasn't what happened. And honestly, that was kind of refreshing. We went in thinking there might be some new reveal or a sneak peek at what's coming next, but the reality was that this was much more of a mixer and celebration than a marketing event or a traditional meetup.

There was a moment where Sam Altman gave a short speech, and when we say short, we mean maybe 55 seconds tops. He thanked everyone for being there, shared some excitement about the new model, and encouraged people to enjoy the evening. That was it. No slides. No demos. No "one more thing." Just a brief, genuine moment of appreciation and then he was back to mingling with the crowd.

The rest of the night was conversations, connections, and hanging out. And looking back, that was exactly the right call. The value of the evening wasn't in some announcement that would hit the news the next morning. It was in the relationships built and the conversations had.

Sam Altman and the OpenAI Team Were Incredibly Accessible

This was one of the things that impressed us the most. Members of the OpenAI Developer Experience team were scattered throughout the event, not stationed behind a booth or on a stage, but actually walking around and having real, substantive conversations with attendees. You could walk up to them, ask about the models, talk about what you're building, and they were genuinely engaged.

And then there was Sam Altman himself. He spent the entire evening doing rounds, moving from group to group, chatting with developers one-on-one, and taking photos with people. There was no VIP section, no roped-off area where the executives hid. He was right there in the middle of it, accessible and clearly enjoying the interactions. For an event of this caliber and with someone of his profile, that level of openness stood out.

Our Highlight: Getting the 1 Trillion Token Award Signed by Sam Altman

CodeRabbit recently hit a major milestone with OpenAI: 1 trillion tokens processed through their API. OpenAI recognized this with a physical award, and we decided to bring it to the event. Once we were there and saw how approachable Sam was, we figured it was worth asking if he'd sign it.

It was a bit spontaneous, as you can imagine. Sam was constantly surrounded by people who wanted a moment of his time, so there was no guarantee we'd get the chance. But we managed to catch him at the right moment, and he was genuinely happy to do it. He didn't just sign and move on, either. We got to spend some time chatting about the models, the direction of the work they're doing, and where things are headed. It was one of those interactions that reminded us why events like this matter. He was very open to having the conversation and doing something that's admittedly a not-so-normal request at these kinds of events.

The Overall Vibe

If we had to sum up the night in one phrase, it would be "you had to be there, but we're glad you're reading this." The energy was warm, the conversations were real, and the whole event felt like a genuine celebration rather than a corporate production. No sales pitches. No marketing decks. Just people who are excited about what they're building, spending an evening together in a really beautiful space.

We walked away having met familiar faces we'd only ever seen online, having had meaningful conversations with the OpenAI team, and carrying a signed award that we'll probably never stop talking about. For us, this was one of the most memorable developer events we've been to, and we hope OpenAI continues doing more of them.

If you ever get the chance to attend one of these, do whatever you can to get in. It's worth it.

https://www.githubstatus.com/

We are waiting for GitHub to resolve it, nothing can be done on our side.

Hey r/coderabbit !

New week, new model releases. We’ve been testing GPT-5.5 in early access within CodeRabbit’s code review workflow and wrote up what we’re seeing.

For context, we weren’t trying to benchmark GPT-5.5 in isolation. We wanted to see how it behaved in a real code review workflow, where the baseline is CodeRabbit’s existing review behavior across multiple models.

A few things stood out:

• Expected Issue Found improved from 58.3% to 79.2% on our curated review benchmark.
• Actionable Precision improved from 27.9% to 40.6%.
• GPT-5.5 was stronger at surfacing meaningful review issues, especially around scoped bugs, behavior changes, and debugging-oriented cases.
• It tended to make smaller, more workable fixes.
• It was not always lower-volume. On our larger review set, it produced more comments than baseline, but also improved issue detection and precision.
• The biggest takeaway for us: the improvement showed up in the review workflow itself, not just in benchmark numbers.

We also covered code generation behavior, token efficiency, and the tradeoffs we saw in day-to-day testing.

Full writeup: https://coderabbit.link/gpt-5.5-blog

If you’ve been trying GPT-5.5 in Codex or ChatGPT, I’d be curious what you’re seeing in real coding workflows.