> ## Content Index
> Fetch the complete content index at: https://madewithlove.com/blog/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further.

# Automatic pull request reviewing with Cursor's Bugbot
- URL: https://madewithlove.com/blog/automatic-pull-request-reviewing-with-cursors-bugbot/
- Published: 2025-09-02T07:20:52.000Z
- Updated: 2026-06-24T08:06:22.000Z
- Description: Pull requests are invaluable for sharing knowledge and improving code quality, but in small teams reviews often get rushed or skipped. AI reviewers like Cursor’s Bugbot step in to bridge the gap. For teams short on review capacity, it can add meaningful value.
- Author: Peter Eysermans
- Tags: AI, Tooling, AI development, Code review

Creating pull requests and having other team members review them is a great way to **share knowledge** in an engineering team and increase the overall [**quality**](https://madewithlove.com/blog/why-code-quality-matters/) of the changes. Two pairs of eyes see more than one, right? In small teams, reviewing pull requests can quickly become a **bottleneck**. Sometimes they're quickly glanced over and approved; the feature needs to get **shipped** after all. Creating pull requests and having your teammates [review](https://madewithlove.com/blog/towards-better-code-reviews/) them is a powerful **habit** a development team can adopt. It spreads knowledge across the team and improves the overall quality of the codebase. Two pairs of eyes see more than one, after all. But in smaller teams, those extra eyes can be hard to spare. Reviews sometimes get **rushed** or **skipped** entirely because there’s a feature to ship and not enough people to take the time for feedback.

In July, [**Cursor**](https://madewithlove.com/blog/using-cursor-background-agents/) released [Bugbot](https://cursor.com/bugbot), an AI-powered code reviewer that helps fill that gap. I’ve been using it since the **beta** phase, and it’s a surprisingly **capable** tool to add to your workflow.

## Stay in the loop

Subscribe 

Email sent! Check your inbox to complete your signup. 

Weekly insights for startup founders and technical leaders.

## Configuration

You set up Bugbot through Cursor's website by linking it to your GitHub organisation. From there, you can **choose** which repositories it should review and whether it should respond to **manual** mentions or **automatically** review every pull request.

![Automatic pull request reviewing with Cursor's Bugbot](https://madewithlove.com/blog/content/images/2025/09/data-src-image-4264ab0a-1fda-4469-8610-4fcb04398948.png)

## Reviewing pull requests

Once configured, Bugbot just works. **Triggering** a review is as **easy** as commenting "bugbot run" on a pull request.

![E530 45f4 b20f](https://madewithlove.com/blog/content/images/2025/09/data-src-image-71d5ee56-e530-45f4-b20f-371b78824e6c.png)

It then analyses the code and replies with a detailed summary of the issues it found.

![Fb54 4b6c a43e](https://madewithlove.com/blog/content/images/2025/09/data-src-image-72834e62-fb54-4b6c-a43e-00fd1c172d24.png)

## How good is it, really?

Like any reviewer, human or [AI](https://madewithlove.com/blog/how-ai-will-replace-pair-programming/), it’s not perfect. It occasionally throws false positives. For instance, in the review above, it flagged swapped parameters that weren’t actually swapped. It’s also overly cautious about nullable types, **warning** about missing null checks even in safe contexts. That said, these are minor **annoyances** rather than **dealbreakers**.

In our case, Bugbot ran for a month and caught around **ten real bugs**. One of the best examples was a subtle mix-up between two different phone number lists in the code. That’s the kind of thing a second pair of eyes can catch, especially when your team doesn’t always have time for thorough reviews.

![A8b4 4b38 a0d9](https://madewithlove.com/blog/content/images/2025/09/data-src-image-e02576b1-a8b4-4b38-a0d9-00f08b495a1c.png)

## What does it cost?

As of July 24th, Bugbot is no longer in beta and requires a **subscription**. At $40/month, it is on the more expensive end of the tooling spectrum, especially when compared to something like GitHub Copilot, which costs $19/month per user. You can also use your **existing** Claude Code subscription to review pull requests at no additional cost.

## Is it worth it?

That depends. Code quality improves when more eyes are applied to it, but there’s a cost to too many false alarms. If AI reviewers are overzealous, teams will ignore them. But for **small teams**, where time and capacity for reviews are limited, Bugbot can offer real value. It helps break down [silos](https://madewithlove.com/blog/the-show-must-go-on-building-bridges-to-prevent-and-work-with-silos/) and adds structure where it’s often lacking.

I’d recommend teams try out an AI code reviewer. Bugbot is a solid option, and even if your mileage may vary, the future of **collaborative** coding certainly includes AI help along the way.

![](https://madewithlove.com/blog/content/images/2025/11/cta-cto.png) 

#### Your product deserves grown-up leadership

We join fast-moving teams to bring calm, clarity, and technical strategy when it matters most.

[Book a CTO consultation](https://madewithlove.com/cto-as-a-service/)