aislop vs Greptile.
Greptile is an LLM that reasons over a codebase graph to review pull requests and answer natural-language questions about the repo. aislop is a deterministic static gate for defined AI-code patterns; it can run locally, in CI, or in an agent workflow, and returns the same score for the same code every time. The core difference: Greptile reasons across the graph in natural language; aislop enforces repeatable checks with no model at runtime.
Side by side.
Both tools improve code review. They sit at different points in the workflow and make different tradeoffs. The marks below are an honest read of each tool's primary, first-party workflow.
Same code in, same score and findings out — no run-to-run drift.
No model call at runtime, so no token cost and no inference variance.
Local static analysis returns in well under a second on a typical change.
Can hook into coding-agent edits before the PR exists.
Reviews the pull request against a codebase-wide graph.
Answer questions about the repo in natural language.
50+ rules and checks tuned for the patterns AI agents leave behind.
Applies safe fixes for mechanical findings automatically.
Blocks merges against an explicit score threshold.
MIT-licensed CLI you can run locally and in CI at no cost.
Project and org-level rules with hierarchical standards.
| Capability | aislop deterministic gate | Greptile LLM graph reviewer |
|---|---|---|
| Deterministic, reproducible output Same code in, same score and findings out — no run-to-run drift. | supported | not supported |
| Runs without an LLM No model call at runtime, so no token cost and no inference variance. | supported | not supported |
| Sub-second latency Local static analysis returns in well under a second on a typical change. | supported | partial support |
| Agent-hook workflow Can hook into coding-agent edits before the PR exists. | supported | not supported |
| Reviews after the PR is opened Reviews the pull request against a codebase-wide graph. | partial support | supported |
| Codebase-graph natural-language queries Answer questions about the repo in natural language. | not supported | supported |
| AI-slop-specific rules 50+ rules and checks tuned for the patterns AI agents leave behind. | supported | partial support |
| Auto-fix Applies safe fixes for mechanical findings automatically. | supported | partial support |
| PR gates Blocks merges against an explicit score threshold. | supported | supported |
| Free open-source CLI MIT-licensed CLI you can run locally and in CI at no cost. | supported | not supported |
| Custom rules Project and org-level rules with hierarchical standards. | supported | partial support |
Greptile reasons over a codebase graph with a language model, which is useful for open-ended questions but means an answer can vary between runs. aislop's findings come from static rules, so a given commit produces the same score. That makes it useful as a merge gate.
aislop can hook into coding-agent edits, so defined issues can surface before a PR exists. Greptile engages at the pull-request stage, reviewing the change against its graph of the wider codebase. Different points in the loop, different strengths.
The aislop CLI runs no model at scan time, so there is no per-token scan cost or inference latency, and the CLI is MIT-licensed and free. LLM-backed review usually carries inference cost and the latency of a model round-trip.
When Greptile is the better choice.
If you want to ask questions about an unfamiliar codebase in plain English, or get a review that reasons across files using a whole-repo graph and explains a change in human terms, Greptile is built for exactly that. A language model with codebase context is the right tool for open-ended, cross-file reasoning. aislop does not do natural-language Q&A; it is a deterministic gate. The two solve different problems and pair well together.
Where aislop fits.
One command scans your repo and returns a 0–100 score with named findings. No signup or model key required for the local CLI.
npx aislop scan