Skip to content

Meet Graphite Agent — your collaborative AI reviewer, built right into your PR page.

Read more

Are there AI code review tools that comment on failing CI logs?

Greg Foster
Greg Foster
Graphite software engineer
Try Graphite

Table of contents

Continuous integration (CI) systems typically handle builds, tests, linters, deployments, and more. When a CI job fails, developers must examine logs to identify the root cause. AI-driven tools can now automatically parse failing CI logs, diagnose issues, and leave useful comments on pull requests—though with some caveats. This guide explores how these systems work (or could work), reviews existing tools and emerging features, and highlights limitations and best practices.

To automatically comment on failing CI logs, an AI tool must do several things:

  1. Ingest and parse log data

    • CI systems (GitHub Actions, Jenkins, CircleCI, GitLab CI, etc.) produce structured and unstructured log output.
    • The AI needs to extract meaningful chunks (error lines, stack traces, test failures, compiler errors) and map those to code locations if possible.
  2. Diagnose root cause(s)

    • Based on the extracted error context (e.g. "NullPointerException at Foo.java:123", "module import failed", "missing dependency"), the AI must infer a probable cause.
    • Use of heuristics, pattern matching, and/or large language models (LLMs) with context (codebase + history) helps here.
  3. Map diagnosis back to code

    • Since the CI failure is usually triggered by a change in code, the tool should correlate the failure symptoms to the diff or the relevant files.
    • E.g. "your new code introduced a call to Foo.bar() without importing the module," or "you changed a function signature but did not update its uses in test files."
  4. Generate a comment / suggestion

    • Format a comment (e.g. on a pull request) that quotes the relevant log lines, explains the probable root cause, and optionally suggests a fix or link to docs.
    • Optionally include code snippets (patch suggestions) or links to lines in the repo.
  5. Integrate via webhooks / bots

    • Tie into pull request workflows: when CI runs and fails, the bot triggers, runs its log analysis + suggestions, then posts comments in the PR checks or review threads.
  6. Optionally learn / refine

    • Incorporate feedback (false positives, corrections) so future diagnoses improve.
    • Maintain a library of known CI failure patterns for the specific repo or organization.

Some systems may also attempt automated fixes (patch generation) based on the diagnosis.

There aren’t a large number of mature tools that fully do all of the above yet, but there is movement in this direction. Here are a few relevant ones and concepts:

Tool / conceptWhat it does (or aims to)Comments / maturity
CTO.ai's CI/CD Review AIAfter pipelines run, their AI reviews failed pipeline runs and posts comments explaining extracted log lines and likely root cause.seems purpose-built for failed CI log commentary.
Qodo / Qodo MergeAI-assisted code review that tries to catch CI failures early (e.g. broken builds, test failures) before they reach CI.more pre-CI preventive than post-failure commentary.
"AI-fixed CI" pipelinesSome CI setups now embed generative AI to read logs, identify causes, and suggest fixes (or even open pull requests).still emergent; often assistive rather than fully reliable.
Graphite / Graphite Agent / Graphite AI ReviewsGraphite provides an AI code review service, with repository context, suggestions on pull requests, and intelligent comments.while Graphite is more focused on code vs logs, its context awareness could be adapted to CI log feedback.
Traditional static analyzers (SonarQube, etc.)analyze code for defects, quality / security issues; integrated into CI and block merges.they do not parse logs or comment on runtime failures.

Graphite Chat offers a powerful approach to handling CI failures through its AI-powered assistant that lives directly in your pull request workflow. Here's how Graphite Chat can help flag and fix CI issues:

Automatic CI failure detection and analysis

When a CI build fails on a pull request, Graphite Chat analyzes the logs and provides contextualized feedback. Rather than requiring developers to manually parse through potentially thousands of lines of log output, Graphite Chat identifies the relevant error messages, stack traces, and failure points, then maps them back to the code changes in the PR.

Intelligent diagnostics with full codebase context

Unlike generic AI tools, Graphite Chat has access to your entire codebase and can understand how changes in a PR relate to other parts of the system. When a CI failure occurs, it can:

  • Identify which specific code changes likely triggered the failure
  • Recognize patterns in common test failures or build errors
  • Understand dependencies between files and modules
  • Provide context about why a particular change might have caused the failure

Actionable fix suggestions

Graphite Chat doesn't just flag issues—it suggests concrete fixes. When it detects a CI failure, it can:

  • Propose specific code changes to resolve the issue
  • Suggest missing imports, incorrect function signatures, or type mismatches
  • Recommend test updates when the code change requires corresponding test modifications
  • Provide explanations that help developers understand the root cause

Interactive troubleshooting

Developers can ask Graphite Chat follow-up questions about CI failures directly in the PR interface:

  • "Why did this test fail?"
  • "What's causing the TypeScript compilation error?"
  • "How should I fix this linting issue?"

This interactive approach makes it easier to iterate on fixes without context switching between logs, code, and documentation.

Integration with the development workflow

Graphite Chat integrates seamlessly with your existing CI/CD pipeline and pull request workflow. It monitors CI runs, analyzes failures in real-time, and can comment directly on PRs when issues are detected—creating a feedback loop that helps developers fix problems faster without leaving their review context.

When integrating AI feedback on CI failures, there are several pitfalls and things to watch out for:

  • False positives / hallucinations The AI might attribute a failure incorrectly or propose a fix that's irrelevant. Over time, users may begin to distrust its comments.

  • Log complexity / noise CI logs can be huge and verbose. The AI needs good heuristics to filter to the relevant lines (stack traces, error messages) vs noise.

  • Context deficits The model may not have full understanding of the runtime environment, external services, configuration, or prior build artifacts.

  • Security / privacy Log outputs often contain tokens, secrets, or internal paths. Care must be taken not to leak sensitive information via AI systems.

  • Integration overhead Setting up bots, webhooks, handling race conditions (e.g. repeated comments) and letting humans override is nontrivial.

  • Scope creep Initially, focusing on a narrower set of failure types (compile errors, test failures, import errors) will yield better reliability than trying to handle all errors.

Best practices / suggestions:

  1. Start with limited domains E.g. target CI failures from unit tests or compile errors only, then expand.

  2. Build or adapt a pattern library Build a catalog of common CI errors + root causes in your organization; use that as training / fallback.

  3. Allow human feedback Let devs mark "incorrect" diagnoses so the system can learn or suppress those types.

  4. Design safe comments Avoid definitive statements ("this is the bug") — instead use probabilistic phrasing ("this error might be caused by…").

  5. Integrate with your PR / CI workflow Tie the commentary bot into your PR system so that comments appear in the relevant context (check runs, PR threads).

  6. Version and scope control Start in "silent / suggestion mode" before letting the AI post on its own.

Yes, there are several AI-powered code review tools available today. Graphite Agent provides AI-powered code review with full codebase context and custom rules. GitHub Copilot offers code review capabilities integrated directly into GitHub workflows. These tools use large language models (LLMs) to understand code context, identify bugs, suggest improvements, and enforce coding standards automatically.

ChatGPT can perform basic code reviews when you paste code snippets into it, but it has significant limitations compared to dedicated AI code review tools. ChatGPT lacks access to your full codebase context, past pull requests, coding standards, and the ability to automatically comment on PRs. It also can't see multiple files at once or understand your project's architecture. While ChatGPT can provide general feedback on code quality, style, and potential bugs, tools like Graphite Agent are purpose-built for code review and offer deeper integration with your development workflow, codebase-aware suggestions, and automatic PR commenting.

Yes, code review can be partially automated, and modern teams typically use a combination of automated and human review. Automated tools excel at catching syntax errors, style violations, common security vulnerabilities, and repetitive issues through static analysis and linters. AI-powered tools like Graphite Agent can now also identify logical errors, performance issues, and architectural concerns that traditional static analyzers miss. However, human review remains essential for evaluating design decisions, business logic correctness, and context-specific trade-offs. The most effective approach is to automate routine checks so human reviewers can focus on higher-level concerns.

Git inspired
Graphite's CLI and VS Code extension make working with Git effortless.
Learn more

Built for the world's fastest engineering teams, now available for everyone