My PRs — Feedback: turn vague review comments into a clear fix
Generic or unclear feedback on your Pull Request stalls you for days. CodeCrab investigates every comment with full local code context and hands you a ready-to-run fix prompt.
Getting feedback on your own Pull Request should move you forward. Too often it does the opposite: a one-line comment you cannot decode, a suggestion without a reason, a "this looks off" on a file you did not write. So you ping the reviewer, wait for a reply across time zones, and your PR sits open another day.
The My PRs view in CodeCrab is built for exactly that moment: understand each comment as fast as possible, then get to the correct fix — with your local code as the source of truth.

The problem: feedback without context
Review comments are written quickly, by someone who holds the context in their head and assumes you do too. What reaches you is often generic ("handle the error case"), ambiguous ("this should be at the service layer"), or simply about code you inherited. The cost is not the fix — it is the round trip needed before you can even start fixing.
Investigate comment: one click, full context
Open your Pull Request in the diff view. Every reviewer comment sits next to the line it refers to, with an Investigate comment action. Trigger it and CodeCrab opens a dedicated window with the detailed explanation: what the comment is really about, which code paths are involved, and diagrams that make the flow visible instead of hypothetical.
In the background, your local model setup — Claude Code, for example — does the digging. It has two advantages no cloud bot has:
- Your whole codebase is right there, locally, so the investigation can follow callers, tests and neighbouring modules, not just the visible diff.
- The GitHub conversation is part of the input — the comment thread, earlier replies and the surrounding review context.
From understanding to a ready-to-run fix prompt
Once the problem is clear, CodeCrab produces a fix prompt you can hand straight to Claude Code or Cursor. It is pre-filled with the relevant files, the intent of the comment and the constraints of your repository — and it is fully editable. If you disagree with the framing, rewrite it. Your criteria stay in the loop.
Read-only today, one-click fix next
Today this flow is read-only: nothing is committed, pushed or replied to without you. The next step is an opt-in automatic fix — one click, and in the background your local model creates a sub-branch, applies the change and runs your test suite on your machine.
That last part is the whole point. As a developer you already have a working test environment locally: dependencies, fixtures, services, secrets. A cloud review bot cannot run it, so it can only suggest. CodeCrab can verify. And once the fix is there, you review it yourself and approve it — the same way you would review a teammate's work.
What you gain
- No more pinging reviewers just to understand a comment.
- Explanations and diagrams grounded in your actual code, not a generic answer.
- An editable fix prompt instead of a blank cursor.
- Local verification against your real test suite.
- Full control: you decide what gets changed, published and approved.
- You learn the codebase along the way, because you see why the comment existed.
Try it on your next Pull Request
Free Public Beta — runs 100% on your machine. No code leaving your laptop.
Download CodeCrabKEEP READING
GitHub Copilot Code Review: How It Works, Custom Instructions and Local Reviews
How GitHub Copilot code review works on Pull Requests, how to customize it with copilot-instructions.md, and how to review your branch locally with Copilot CLI before pushing.
GitLab AI Code Review: How to Review Merge Requests Locally with AI
Review GitLab merge requests with AI on your own machine: glab mr checkout, view and diff, a copy-ready review prompt for Claude Code, Cursor, Codex or Copilot CLI.
How to Use Cursor for Code Review: Review Rules, Diff Checks and PR Workflows
Use Cursor for code review: review your branch before pushing, review PRs with the GitHub CLI, use Bugbot, and add a copy-ready .cursor/rules code review rule.
Can Claude Code Review PRs? How to Review a Pull Request with Claude Code (Step by Step)
Yes, Claude Code can review Pull Requests. Learn three ways to review a PR with Claude Code: pre-push branch reviews, GitHub CLI PR reviews and repeatable claude -p reviews, with copy-ready prompts.
The AI-Era Code Review Checklist: How to Review AI-Generated Code (and Vibe-Coded PRs)
A practical code review checklist for AI-generated code: verify authorization, API contracts, data integrity and tests, with copy-ready review templates and a repository-aware prompt.
Cursor Bugbot vs Codex vs Claude Code: Which AI Reviews Pull Requests Best?
Compare Cursor Bugbot, OpenAI Codex and Claude Code for PR and pre-push reviews: triggers, repository rules, permissions, privacy, practical prompts and a fair evaluation method.
Claude Code Subagents for Code Review: Security, Performance and Architecture Reviewers
Build three specialized Claude Code review subagents with copy-ready definitions: a security reviewer, a performance reviewer and an architecture reviewer, each with isolated context and read-only tools.
Best AI Code Review Tools in 2026: CodeRabbit vs Greptile vs Qodo vs Cursor Bugbot vs CodeCrab
A no-pricing comparison of the leading AI code review tools: where your code goes, what permissions you grant, how much context the reviewer sees, and when the review happens.
Claude Code Skills for Code Review: How to Create, Install and Activate Them
Create and install a custom Claude Code review skill with a copy-ready SKILL.md template. Learn local vs global paths, activation, troubleshooting, and the CodeCrab output format.
Local-First AI Code Review: Why Enterprise Codebases Can't Rely on Cloud Review Bots
Cloud review bots copy your diffs to vendor servers and ask for org-wide permissions. Here is how local AI code review and self-hosted PR review really differ, and what to verify before trusting either.
How to Review Code with Claude Code: From Generic Prompts to Repo-Aware Reviews
Claude Code can review Pull Requests, but generic prompts miss what matters. Learn how review skills, repository context and a fixed output format turn it into a real reviewer.
AI Can Write Your Code. But Who Reviews It? The New PR Bottleneck
AI made writing code cheap, but reviewing AI-generated code is now the bottleneck. Learn why PR queues grow, why rubber-stamping is risky, and how to review before the Pull Request.
Code review that fits your workflow: local skills and repository-aware agents
CodeCrab combines your existing local review skills with per-repository profiles and specialized agents, so you can review PRs and pre-push changes with the full codebase in context.
PR Code Reviews: how CodeCrab unblocks your team in the AI era
AI writes more code than ever, so review queues are the new bottleneck. Here is how CodeCrab reviews Pull Requests locally, with repo-specific skills and full engineer control.
Pre-Push Code Review: catch bugs before the Pull Request even exists
The cheapest bug is the one that never reaches a PR. CodeCrab reviews your local changes with your repo's own profile and skills, so you push higher-quality code the first time.
