aislop vs Greptile.
Greptile builds a graph of your codebase and uses a language model to review pull requests and answer natural-language questions about the repo. aislop is a deterministic static gate that hooks into your coding agent on every keystroke and returns the same score for the same code every time. The core difference: Greptile reasons over the repo with an LLM, so answers can vary run to run; aislop is reproducible by construction and runs with no LLM at runtime.
Side by side.
Both tools improve code review. They take different approaches 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.
Hooks into coding agents on every edit, before the PR exists.
Reviews the pull request against a codebase-wide graph.
Answer questions about the repo in natural language.
40+ rules 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 |
| Reviews during the keystroke (agent hooks) Hooks into coding agents on every edit, before the PR exists. | supported | not supported |
| Reviews after the PR is opened Reviews the pull request against a codebase-wide graph. | partial | supported |
| Codebase-graph natural-language queries Answer questions about the repo in natural language. | not supported | supported |
| AI-slop-specific rules 40+ rules tuned for the patterns AI agents leave behind. | supported | partial |
| Auto-fix Applies safe fixes for mechanical findings automatically. | supported | partial |
| 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 |
Greptile reasons over a codebase graph with a language model, which is powerful for open-ended questions but means an answer can vary between runs. aislop's findings come from static rules, so a given commit always produces the same score. That makes it dependable as a merge gate.
aislop hooks into the coding agent on every edit, so slop is caught 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.
aislop runs no model at runtime, so there is no per-token cost and no inference latency, and the CLI is MIT-licensed and free. LLM-backed review 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.
Try aislop free.
One command scans your repo and returns a 0–100 score with every finding. No signup, no model key, no token cost.
npx aislop scan