Opus is $5 per mtok of input tokens, but $25 for output.

Yes, but input is usually what people are talking about since that is the vast majority of token usage.

I wouldn't call input a vast majority of token usage. In my experience output is 25%-33% of the cost.

It depends what OS you need/want.

Some people don't want macos.

I can install Windows or Linux on Framework.

QQQ?

NASDAQ-100 following ETF. Until recently, the only one that tracked the NASDAQ-100, which is a tech heavy index.

Well, they are where I am. But LLM reviews doesn't solve that. It just adds another perspective, which catches different issues.

Companies I remember: CD Project RED, but they are now switching their newest game to Unreal Engine.

id Software, the new Doom series uses highly performant engine (as if there was some legacy there for that).

I did similarly with copilot.

I have about 15 or so subagents doing reviews from different perspectives (or providing some additional value, like finding agents.md files, doing confidence ranking, describing images attached to the PR, that get validated later on with Jira issue description).

I used it since about November, with large scale popularity in my company reaching in April - all that on a 300 premium requests (because they allowed starting subagents, and there was no limit how long a single request can last) - so it would cost something like $5000 and $8000 for April and May if it was API pricing. I had similar cost per review (about $0.90) with Opus 4.6 and help from Sonnet and Haiku for simpler tasks. It did about 4000 reviews during the last 2 months.

And starting in June, it will be dead because it will be API pricing and for $30 (or $19 since September) it will do just few reviews.

A fun project.

It is starting the review during CI (CI just triggers the review), not blocking merges like failed build or lint failures.

Actually not, it is similar debate like rebase or merge.

e.g. I don't squash, I prefer to see full history, not redacted one.

It is easier to view code review results in a tool and not in a text during commit.

There is no universal standard which IDEs support for code review results (there is SARIF, but it is not supported that widely). A review result on a web page with comments from humans, is valuable.

codex is also good, has better usage limits compared to CC.

Issue is that CC forced corps over 150 people into a API pricing, which is, well, suboptimal compared what we get. I think it will push those towards hiring more juniors (finally).

>I think it will push those towards hiring more...

...H1Bs.