# Do coding agents recommend reviewdog? > reviewdog was chosen in 3% of 496 judged code review sessions, ranking ninth. Measured with Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, Grok Build CLI and Muse Code. Source: https://armature.tech/library/do-coding-agents-recommend-reviewdog Published: 2026-09-24 Publisher: Armature, Inc. (https://armature.tech) --- > reviewdog was chosen in 3% of 496 judged code review sessions, ranking ninth. It was also raised as a candidate in 37 further sessions without being chosen. This page reports what happened when Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, Grok Build CLI and Muse Code had to solve a problem in code review inside a realistic codebase. Not what a chat assistant says about reviewdog. What an agent actually installed. ## The numbers | | | | --- | --- | | Category | Code review | | Sessions in the category | 496 | | Sessions where reviewdog was chosen | 13 | | Install share | 3% | | Rank in category | 9 of 21 | | Codebases it won in | 4 | | Raised as a candidate, not chosen | 37 | | Chosen when considered | 26% | | Site | github.com | ## By agent With 13 wins spread across 5 agents, the rates below are small numbers and a difference between them is not yet a finding. They are here because the direction is worth knowing, not because the gap is established. | Agent | Sessions | Chose reviewdog | Share | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Claude Code | 130 | 0 | 0% | | Codex | 130 | 1 | 1% | | Cursor | 120 | 0 | 0% | | Grok Build CLI | 30 | 2 | 7% | | Muse Code | 86 | 10 | 12% | ## By who was asking reviewdog performs similarly across the four kinds of buyer, from 1% to 4%. That is unusual: the category leader changed with the persona in 22 of the 29 categories we measured. | Who is asking | Sessions | Chose reviewdog | Share | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Vibe coder | 100 | 4 | 4% | | Junior developer | 158 | 3 | 2% | | Senior engineer | 100 | 1 | 1% | | Enterprise team | 138 | 5 | 4% | ## What reviewdog was up against The full ranking in code review, from the same sessions: | # | Product | Runs won | Share | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | 1 | Claude Code review | 101 | 20% | | 2 | Cursor Bugbot | 91 | 18% | | 3 | CodeRabbit | 69 | 14% | | 4 | Qodo Merge | 46 | 9% | | 5 | Codex code review | 44 | 9% | | 6 | Built in-house (no product adopted) | 40 | 8% | | 7 | GitHub Copilot code review | 31 | 6% | | 8 | Semgrep | 22 | 4% | ## What this means reviewdog was raised in 37 sessions and chosen in 13. That ratio is balanced enough that the ceiling is presence rather than integration: the product converts reasonably when it is on the table, and it is not on the table often enough. ## Where these numbers come from The 496 sessions in code review are part of a published set of 13,497, run with real coding agents inside realistic codebases and judged blind. The full method is on one page: [how we measured this](/library/how-we-measured-this). Every code review run can be replayed on [the board](/leaderboards/code-review). If you work on reviewdog: the judge recorded a reason for every session where it was raised and passed over. Those reasons are in the transcripts. ## Common questions ### Do coding agents recommend reviewdog? Yes. reviewdog was chosen in 13 of the 496 judged sessions in code review, a 3% install share, ranking ninth in its category. ### Does Claude Code recommend reviewdog? In 0 of the 130 sessions in code review run with Claude Code, which is 0%. ### Do different coding agents treat reviewdog differently? Yes, and by a wide margin. Muse Code chose it in 12% of its runs and Claude Code in 0%. ### How was this measured? Real coding agents at pinned versions were run in sandboxes inside 91 realistic codebases and asked to solve real tasks. A simulated project owner approved or questioned each recommendation before any code was written, and a judge from a model family that builds none of the agents read every session blind. ### How often is reviewdog considered but not chosen? It was raised as a candidate in 37 sessions without being chosen, and chosen in 13. That is a 26% conversion from considered to chosen. ## Read next - [How to get picked for code review by coding agents](https://armature.tech/library/code-review-coding-agents-playbook) (Markdown: https://armature.tech/library/code-review-coding-agents-playbook.md) - [Do coding agents recommend Claude Code review?](https://armature.tech/library/do-coding-agents-recommend-claude-code-review) (Markdown: https://armature.tech/library/do-coding-agents-recommend-claude-code-review.md) - [Do coding agents recommend Cursor Bugbot?](https://armature.tech/library/do-coding-agents-recommend-cursor-bugbot) (Markdown: https://armature.tech/library/do-coding-agents-recommend-cursor-bugbot.md) - [Do Claude Code, Codex and Cursor pick the same tools?](https://armature.tech/library/do-claude-code-and-codex-agree) (Markdown: https://armature.tech/library/do-claude-code-and-codex-agree.md) --- Armature helps software products get discovered and used by coding agents. Service: https://armature.tech/discoverability · Results: https://armature.tech/leaderboards/sectors · Contact: contact@armature.tech