A second opinion on AI-written code, from models that didn’t write it.
MegaLens sends the change or plan you point at to AI models from different companies. You get one list back, with each finding labelled verified, disputed or unverified.
First review free, no card; about a dollar a review after that. Works in Claude Code, Codex CLI, Cursor, Gemini CLI and Lovable, and with OAuth connectors such as ChatGPT and Claude.ai.
How it works
Three steps, one request.
1. Connect
Run the setup in your terminal for Claude Code, Codex CLI, Cursor or Gemini CLI. In Lovable, paste your URL and token. In ChatGPT or Claude.ai, add MegaLens as a connector and sign in.
2. Ask your coding tool
Type “Review this change with MegaLens.” Your tool sends that code, and MegaLens sees nothing else.
3. Get one clear list
Every finding is marked verified, disputed or unverified, and the models that took part are named.
Why not just paste your code into another model yourself?
You can. But here is the difference.
- ✓
Pasting is a job. This is one command.
Open ChatGPT, paste, ask. Open Gemini, paste again. Open DeepSeek, paste again. Then read three long answers and referee them yourself. MegaLens asks its chosen models and combines their answers, with one command in your tool.
- ✓
Models picked for you.
It picks up to four models from different companies, more when your change looks riskier. Free uses up to two, and sometimes fewer take part. Each gets your code separately. Which models we use is our recipe, and we update it as models change.
- ✓
One list, each finding labelled.
The answers are merged into one list of findings. Findings the audit rejects or can’t settle are marked disputed or unverified. The result names the models that took part.
- ✓
Rules a chat answer doesn’t have to follow.
To accept a finding, our audit must quote the exact line of code. It must say whether the code can even be reached, or that it can’t tell. It can lower a severity label, never raise it. When it can’t settle a finding, it says so, and can give your tool one question when there is a file or function to check. These checks still let some false alarms through, and can leave a severity too high.
- ✓
We check our own labels and publish it.
On a small sample, checked by two AI models, bad parts included. We measured our own reviews, not hand pasting. That research is public →
What one finding looks like
Three AI models flagged this. Our audit disagreed, and showed the line of code its reason rests on. It then hands your coding tool the question: is the audit right? MegaLens can’t open your files, but your coding tool can.
From a real review of a public app, 23 September 2026; the app isn’t named. This review ran four models; Free runs two.
host_verify: the one thing for your coding tool to check
In one of our own builds, two reviewing models found 14 more issues after all 10 end-to-end tests passed.
Start free →Where it runs
Runs inside your editor.
No new tool to learn.
Start a review from your editor. Results come back in the same place, with no extra tabs or windows. For programmatic access, there is also a REST API.
Claude Code
LiveFull review. Findings come back into your Claude Code chat.
Codex CLI
LiveFull review. Findings come back into your Codex chat.
Cursor
LiveFull review findings delivered in Cursor.
Gemini CLI
LiveFull review findings delivered in Gemini CLI.
Lovable
LiveFull review findings delivered in Lovable.
ChatGPT and Claude.ai
LiveAdd MegaLens as an OAuth connector. Paste one URL and sign in.
GitHub Copilot
Coming soonGitHub Copilot support is coming soon.
How we compare
Your coding tool alone vs. MegaLens vs. pull request review bots.
CodeRabbit, Greptile, and Cursor BugBot review code after you open a pull request. MegaLens reviews before your coding tool makes changes.
| Your tool alone | MegaLens + your tool | Pull-request bots | |
|---|---|---|---|
| When it reviews | While you code | Before changes start | After you open a PR |
| AI models used | Depends on your agent setup | Selects up to four, from different companies, named in each result | Multiple, per their own docs |
| You see where the models disagreed | No | Yes, dissent is preserved, not averaged away | Not published |
| Security and compliance review | Depends on your agent setup | Same review, with a security focus | Vendor pipeline |
| Works inside your editor | Built-in | Plugin, same workflow | Web dashboard or pull-request comments |
| REST API for automation | Depends on your agent setup | Yes (n8n, Zapier, CI/CD) | Some |
| Pricing | Included in your tool’s plan | Plans from $19/mo with reviews included, or pay as you go | Per seat, plus usage on some plans |
Checked against the vendors’ own pages on 14 September 2026. CodeRabbit Essentials $24/developer/mo billed annually ($30 monthly), Team $48 annually ($60 monthly). Greptile Pro $30/seat/mo including 50 credits per seat, extra credits $1. Cursor BugBot has no per-seat price — it bills usage inside Cursor’s plans. Included usage and features differ between all of them, so compare the total bill rather than the subscription. CodeRabbit and Greptile both document multi-model pipelines; we make no claim about how many models any competitor runs.
Beyond code review
Code, security and planning reviews in your editor.
The plugin runs code, security and planning reviews inside your editor.
In your editor
Planning
Review a plan before you build it
- •Gaps in the plan
- •Risky or missing steps
- •Before any code changes
“Review this migration plan before I start”
Code
Architecture to deployment
- •Bugs and why they happen
- •Slow database queries
- •Plans for database changes
“Audit this codebase for performance bottlenecks”
Security
Security review
- •Common web security holes (OWASP Top 10)
- •Login and permission checks
- •What an attacker could try (threat modeling)
“Audit this auth flow for privilege escalation risks”
Best for
Where it helps most.
MegaLens is not for every quick question. Use it when a mistake would be costly.
Checking a change or hunting a bug
Useful when you want a ranked list of what is wrong and what to fix first.
Find first, then fix
The sweet spot. MegaLens finds likely issues first, so your coding tool starts from a list instead of a blank page.
Logins, payments and private data
Helpful when you want another pass on logins, tokens or billing before code changes go in.
Pricing
Plans that fit how often you review.
No seats. Your allowance is monthly, not hourly. A review is a full multi-model audit, counted once.
Free
Try it inside your coding tool
- Your first review is free, with no card
- MegaLens selects two reviewing models for it
- After that, pay as you go: $9 per 1M blended tokens, never more than $3 for one review, prepaid from $20
Plus
or $190 a year, 2 months free
- Up to 100 reviews a month
- Model usage included
- MegaLens selects up to four reviewing models
- Cancel any time. Your plan runs to the end of the period you paid for
Pro
or $590 a year, 2 months free
- Everything in Plus
- Up to 300 reviews a month
- REST API access, not drawn from your allowance
- 15% off pay-as-you-go after your allowance, if you turn it on in Usage
A review draws on your monthly allowance by its size, and one review never draws more than $3. Your usage page shows what you have left.
FAQ
Questions we'd ask too.
How is this different from just using Claude Code or Codex?
Which editors does it work with?
How much does a typical review cost?
What is the difference between Free and the paid plans?
Why a range and not an exact number?
What happens when I use up my allowance?
What happens if I cancel?
Can MegaLens read my repository?
Do you store my code or train on my data?
Can I pick which AI models review my code?
Your code deserves a second opinion.
Keep your coding tool. Give it a review team.
AI models from different companies review your code. Your coding tool decides what to change. All inside your editor.
Start free, first review on us