Problem Statement
Every review uses a single configured model. For cost efficiency, low-risk diffs (small, docs-only, generated) could be reviewed by a cheaper model, escalating to a stronger model only for larger or higher-risk changes.
Proposed Solution
Add optional risk-based model routing: classify the diff (size, paths, signals) and select among configured models, with fallback to a secondary model on provider error or rate limit. Make routing rules configurable; default to single-model behavior. Pairs with multi-provider support and per-PR spend caps.
Alternatives Considered
- Single model always — simplest, but leaves cost savings on the table.
Priority
Nice to have
Code of Conduct
Problem Statement
Every review uses a single configured model. For cost efficiency, low-risk diffs (small, docs-only, generated) could be reviewed by a cheaper model, escalating to a stronger model only for larger or higher-risk changes.
Proposed Solution
Add optional risk-based model routing: classify the diff (size, paths, signals) and select among configured models, with fallback to a secondary model on provider error or rate limit. Make routing rules configurable; default to single-model behavior. Pairs with multi-provider support and per-PR spend caps.
Alternatives Considered
Priority
Nice to have
Code of Conduct