CodeRabbit logoCodeRabbit logo
AgentEnterpriseCustomersPricingBlog
  • Docs
  • Trust Center
  • Contact Us
  • FAQ
  • Reports & Guides
Log InGet a free trial

Products

AgentDiscordPull Request ReviewsIDE ReviewsCLI ReviewsPlanOSS

Navigation

About UsFeaturesFAQSystem StatusCareersDPAStartup ProgramVulnerability Disclosure

Resources

BlogDocsChangelogCase StudiesTrust CenterBrand GuidelinesReports & Guides

Contact

SupportSalesPricingPartnerships

By signing up you agree to our Terms of Use and authorize CodeRabbit to provide occasional updates about products and solutions. You understand that you can opt out at any time and that your data will be handled in accordance with CodeRabbit Privacy Policy

footer-logo shape
Terms of Service Privacy Policy

CodeRabbit, Inc. © 2026

A major walkthrough upgrade: explainable PRs and smarter reviewer routing

by
Konrad Sopala

Konrad Sopala

May 14, 2026

5 min read

May 14, 2026

5 min read

  • Layer Based Walkthroughs: Read the PR in the order it was actually built
  • Suggested reviewers instructions: CodeRabbit says who reviews what
  • Try them out
Back to blog
Cover image

Share

Share on RedditShare on XShare on LinkedIn

Cut code review time & bugs by 50%

Most installed AI app on GitHub and GitLab

Free 14-day trial

Get Started

Catch the latest, right in your inbox.

Add us to your feed.RSS feed icon
newsletter decoration

Catch the latest, right in your inbox.

Add us to your feed.RSS feed icon

Keep reading

Opus 5 for code review: Cleaner actionable comments, noisier overall

Opus 5 for code review: Cleaner actionable comments, noisier overall

Opus 5 produced a cleaner actionable-comment stream, but caught fewer known issues and generated roughly four times the baseline's nitpicks. Here is where the model may fit — and where it does not.

Code is no longer the bottleneck. Understanding is.

Code is no longer the bottleneck. Understanding is.

Coding agents can expand change volume faster than teams can understand it. Review needs a shared path from intent to system behavior to code so people can keep shaping the system.

Close the loop after every merge: the agent that reviewed your PR can now follow through

Close the loop after every merge: the agent that reviewed your PR can now follow through

Post-Merge Actions use pull request context to handle changelogs, documentation, tickets, and other work that should happen after merge.

GetStarted in2 clicks.

Try it for free

Two updates to the CodeRabbit PR walkthrough went live recently, and together they're a meaningful upgrade to what the walkthrough actually does. One changes how you read a PR, and the other changes how it gets routed to reviewers.

They sit in different parts of the flow, but they pull in the same direction: the walkthrough should explain the PR, not just describe it. A flat diff describes. A flat list of suggested reviewers describes. Neither helps you actually trust the change, or get it in front of the right people.

These two updates do.

Layer Based Walkthroughs: Read the PR in the order it was actually built

You open a PR. The file list is alphabetical.

api/ db/ services/ tests/ utils/ web/

You start scrolling and try to reconstruct what happened: was the migration the starting point, or did it come after the API change? Is this new service the cause of the type changes downstream, or a consequence? Where do the tests fit?

This is the price of a flat diff. The order you read the changes in has no relationship to the order they were made in, or to which parts depend on which. You spend the first few minutes of every PR sorting that out before you can evaluate anything.

It gets worse with AI-authored PRs. They tend to be larger and touch more files at once, so the mental reconstruction tax gets paid more often. And the cost of getting it wrong is higher, because there isn't a human across the desk to ask what they were thinking.

We've written before about explainability, the idea that AI systems doing real work on things that matter have to show their homework, or the trust never quite materializes.

A flat diff is the opposite of that. It tells you what changed, not how the change was reasoned about, what depends on what, or in what order things had to happen for the whole thing to make sense.

The burden of figuring that out lands on whoever opens the PR.

Layer Based Walkthroughs are CodeRabbit's answer. Instead of an alphabetical file list, CodeRabbit reverse engineers how the change was actually built and organizes it into logical layers: what was changed first, what came next, and what depends on what. A typical PR walkthrough might be ordered:

  1. Data models and schema changes
  2. Backend logic that uses the new model
  3. API responses that surface the new shape
  4. Frontend or consumers that read the new responses
  5. Tests covering the above

GitHub walkthrough page detailing payment intent and calendar export system changes in a summary table.

Each layer comes with its own summary scoped to the changes inside it. You can read top-down for the full story, or jump to the layer that matters most to the kind of review you're doing. Security folks tend to want the boundary stuff, frontend folks tend to want the responses.

It works the same way whether a human or an AI agent wrote the changes. But the AI case is where it pays off most: when you can't ask the author what they were thinking, the walkthrough has to show the work instead.

Layer Based Walkthroughs are how CodeRabbit does that.

Suggested reviewers instructions: CodeRabbit says who reviews what

CodeRabbit has had suggested reviewers in the walkthrough for a while now. The suggestions come from git history and code ownership, which works well in steady-state codebases where the right reviewer for a file is whoever's been touching it recently.

It works less well in two cases:

  • The right reviewer isn't the most recent contributor. They're the subject matter expert for that area: the security team for anything in auth/, the data platform team for any migration, the SRE on call this week for infra changes.

  • The right reviewer is a team, not a person.

Suggested reviewers instructions let you spell this out directly in the CodeRabbit YAML file. Map reviewers, individual users or teams, to the conditions where they should be assigned:

Suggested reviewer instructions describing mapping users to PR scenarios and GitHub team support.

Code snippet showing review instructions for different developer groups based on pull request changes.

When the list is empty, CodeRabbit falls back to its existing prior-PR-based suggestions, so you can be as exhaustive or as selective as makes sense for your team.

A couple of small things worth flagging:

  • Team handles are supported on GitHub. On GitLab, group handles are ignored; only individual user handles get resolved and assigned.
  • Pair this with auto_assign_reviewers: true if you want CodeRabbit to actually request reviews from the suggested folks, not just list them in the walkthrough.

Try them out

If you've been mentally reconstructing the order of changes in every PR you open, Layered Walkthroughs should take a chunk of that off your plate.

If you've been writing the same Slack messages over and over, "Hey, can someone from the platform team take a look at this?", suggested_reviewers_instructions will handle that part for you.

Get started with CodeRabbit