ChorusvsWarden
Generated from the two spec rows. Green marks the better value where a spec has a clear direction. Everything else is just different.
Chorus
Chorus · Code review agent
#53OSSMCP
Panel
7.24 spec wins
- Reliability
- 6.8
- Usefulness
- 7.3
- Cost
- 8.5
- Longevity
- 6.2
“There is a cockpit UI for watching four models argue about your pull request, which is entertainment filed as tooling.”
Warden
Sentry · Code review agent
#40
Panel
7.62 spec wins
- Reliability
- 7.3
- Usefulness
- 7.3
- Cost
- 8.0
- Longevity
- 7.8
“Reviews run on Pi by default, so the thing judging your code arrives with opinions you did not pick.”
Spec by spec
| Spec | Chorus | Warden |
|---|---|---|
| Architecture | ||
| Category | Code review agent | Code review agent |
| Runs | local | local, cloud |
| Platforms | macos, linux, windows | macos, linux |
| Context window | not documented | not documented |
| Protocols | ||
| MCP client | No | No |
| MCP server | Yes | No |
| Capabilities | ||
| Runs terminal commands | Yes | No |
| Multi-file edits | NoChorus reviews rather than edits; the fix goes back to whichever agent wrote the code. | YesOnly through --fix, which applies the fixes a review suggested. |
| Git operations | No | Yes |
| Browser control | No | No |
| Sandboxed execution | No | No |
| Multi-agent orchestration | YesA run fans the same diff out to two to four different vendor CLIs in parallel and compares their verdicts. | YesEach Skill is a separate review agent and several can be added to one repository. |
| Headless / CI mode | YesChorus can be called from scripts and CI, though calling it from `codex exec` requires --dangerously-bypass-approvals-and-sandbox because Codex blocks MCP tools there. | Yes |
| Models | ||
| Backbone | Claude Code, Codex CLI, Gemini CLI, OpenCode, Kimi CLI | Pi, OpenAI, Anthropic |
| Bring your own model | Yes | Yes |
| Local models | No | No |
| Cost | ||
| Pricing model | byok | byok |
| Starts at | $0/mo | $0/mo |
| Free tier | Yes | Yes |
| Bring your own key | Yes | Yes |
| Openness | ||
| Open source | Yes | No |
| License | Apache-2.0 | FSL-1.1-ALv2 |
| GitHub stars | 533 | 412 |
Which one would each critic pick
| Critic | Chorus | Warden | Pick |
|---|---|---|---|
| El Juez | — | — | not enough reviews |
| El Amigo | 7.5 | 7.8 | Warden — Pick it if you have conventions worth encoding; pick a hosted review bot if you want somebody else's opinions ready to go on day one. |
| El Crítico | 6.8 | 7.3 | Warden — The --fix flag lets the same system that found the problem write and apply the correction, with no independent check between the finding and the change. |
| El Profesor | 7.3 | 7.8 | Warden — It ships an eval framework for the reviews themselves, which makes it one of the few tools on this board that treats its own output as measurable. |
| La Inversora | 6.5 | 8.0 | Warden — Sentry has revenue, a sales motion and an existing relationship with the exact buyer this needs, so the risk here is deprioritisation rather than death. |
| La Jefa | 7.3 | 8.3 | Warden — It runs as a GitHub Action on every pull request, so there are no seats to provision and the whole rollout is a workflow file. |
| El Hacker | 8.0 | 6.8 | Chorus — Apache-2.0, chorus init registers it as an MCP server with every CLI and IDE it finds, exposing nine tools, and the daemon and its history stay on my machine. |
Picks are derived from each critic's own scores. Humans vote on matchups on the duels page.