Macroscope
Verified Oct 2, 2026 ActiveAI code review for GitHub pull requests, plus commit summaries and an agent that answers questions and opens fix PRs.
Listed on EffectHub ·
Pricing
- Pricing model
- Paid
- Paid options from
- $0.50/request
- Billing
- Metered · per request
Usage-based, prepaid balance with no per-seat fee. Code Review is $0.05 per KB reviewed with a $0.50 minimum per review, Status is $0.05 per commit, and the agent is $0.01 per credit with 1,000 free credits a month. Each new workspace gets $100 of free usage; the dedicated pricing page returned an error, so rates come from the vendor's pricing.md and llms.txt.
Use tool ↗About Macroscope
Macroscope installs as a GitHub App and reviews pull requests by walking the repository's syntax tree, so it can flag bugs that only show up across files. It posts inline comments with suggested diffs, writes PR descriptions, can open a fix PR, and can auto-approve low-risk changes under rules you set in a markdown file. A Status product summarizes commits and weekly progress, and an agent answers codebase questions in Slack and GitHub. Murmur, a beta product, runs cloud coding agents in sandboxes. It is a San Francisco startup founded by the Periscope co-founders.
- API
- Yes
- Last verified
- Oct 2, 2026
Verified sources
- Home page: Code Review, Status and Murmur productsmacroscope.com ↗
- Vendor pricing file: $0.05/KB review with $0.50 floor, $0.05 per commit, $0.01 per agent credit, $100 free usagemacroscope.com ↗
- Vendor overview file: GitHub App, supported languages, SOC 2 Type II, no training on customer codemacroscope.com ↗
- TechCrunch: San Francisco startup, founded July 2023, launched September 2025techcrunch.com ↗
Is Macroscope legit?
We don’t label tools safe or unsafe. Below are the records we checked ourselves, each with the date we read it.
- Last checked
- Oct 2, 2026The site answered
- On the market since
- 2025The vendor's own material, read by us
- Operated by
- Macroscope, United StatesOur research, card verified Oct 2, 2026
Pros & cons of Macroscope
A fit for engineering teams on GitHub that want deep, usage-priced reviews and plain-language reporting on what shipped, without paying per seat. The cost scales with code volume, so large pull requests get expensive, and it only covers GitHub today.
Pros
- Usage-based billing with no seat fees and a $100 starting credit per workspace
- Reviews built on whole-codebase analysis rather than only the diff
- Review, summaries and a Slack-connected agent share one balance
- Spend caps per review and monthly limits are built in
Cons
- Cost rises with the size of reviewed changes
- GitHub only
- The public pricing page was not available, so rates live in text files
- Benchmark claims on the site are the vendor's own
Best for
- Small and mid-size engineering teams on GitHub who want bug-focused PR reviews
- Engineering managers who want automatic commit and sprint summaries
- Teams that prefer paying for usage instead of per-developer seats
Not for
- Teams on GitLab or Bitbucket, since the install path is a GitHub App
- Organizations that need a fixed monthly price for budgeting
Watch out: Billing is by kilobyte of code reviewed, with a default cap of $10 per review and $50 per pull request, so large refactors can cost noticeably more than a typical PR; set caps in billing settings before enabling auto-review on every repo.
Top alternatives to Macroscope
Macroscope head-to-head
Side-by-side fact sheets against the competitors our research or their makers name — pricing, platforms, API and both verdicts on one page.
Also used for
AI tools by profession
Code Review & Quality is one of the jobs on this page: