Retriggering AI reviews

Profile keys consumed

• review.coderabbit
• make.pr_comments
• ci.required_checks

review.coderabbit says whether a CodeRabbit review is expected at all — when it is disabled, record the CodeRabbit steps SKIPPED and fall back to the reviewers that do run. Thread listing goes through the target mapped by make.pr_comments; skip that step with a recorded note when it maps to null and list threads with the GitHub CLI instead. ci.required_checks is the check set that must have registered before a review is requested.

Overview

Frontend repositories in this plugin's scope rely on bot reviewers that do not always run on their own: CodeRabbit auto-review is often paused at the organization level and refuses oversized or rate-limited PRs, cubic runs only when asked, and Qodo stops entirely when its subscription lapses. The remedy is a mention comment on a PR that is already in its final shape — plus knowing which reviewers no mention can reach.

When to use

• A PR has CI running but no review from coderabbitai, cubic-dev-ai, or qodo-code-review.
• CodeRabbit replied Review rate limited., Review limit reached, or Review skipped: N files exceed the limit of 100.
• Qodo posted that reviews are paused because the subscription is no longer active.
• Several PRs are being landed in one session and each needs a fresh AI review.
• A branch-protection rule wants a CodeRabbit approval and none has been posted.
• Not for: qlty and SonarCloud. Both post their own summary comment automatically and have no mention command; they only re-run on a new push.

Applicability by repository shape

• React SPA shape (feature modules under the source root, a bootable app, an aggregate CI target): yes — CodeRabbit, cubic, Qodo, and qlty all comment; the target mapped by make.pr_comments lists threads.
• Next.js app shape (routed pages, no aggregate duplication gate): yes — the same four bots; the target mapped by make.pr_comments lists threads.
• Component-library shape (Storybook-first, no bootable app, published package): yes — the same four plus SonarCloud; there is no mapped make.pr_comments target, so list threads with gh api graphql directly.

Quick reference

Reviewer	Trigger comment	Notes
CodeRabbit	@coderabbitai review	incremental; about one per hour per repo
CodeRabbit	@coderabbitai full review	re-reviews already-reviewed commits
CodeRabbit	@coderabbitai approve	resolves threads and approves; no merge
cubic	@cubic-dev-ai review	replies "I have started the AI code review"
cubic	@cubic-dev-ai approve	blocked while cubic threads stay unresolved
Qodo	none while paused	lapsed subscription; report and skip
qlty	none	auto-comments a summary; re-run by pushing
SonarCloud	none	component-library shape; comment per push

Start the comment with the mention — text before it can stop the bot parsing it, while trailing words on the same line are fine (@cubic-dev-ai review this PR starts a review). @coderabbitai review skips commits it has already reviewed, so reach for @coderabbitai full review after a long gap or a dismissed review.

Procedure

1. Pre-flight the PR before asking, so the bot reviews the final diff:

   • not a draft (CodeRabbit auto-review skips drafts);
   • at or under 100 changed files — above that CodeRabbit answers Review skipped and no mention helps; split the PR or change its base branch;
   • mergeable is true (gh pr view <n> --json mergeable);
   • earlier threads answered — CodeRabbit will not approve while threads are open;
   • the full check set named by ci.required_checks has registered (30-plus checks in the React SPA and Next.js shapes) with no failure; pending is fine.

2. Post the mention as its own comment:

   gh pr comment <n> --body '@coderabbitai review'
   gh pr comment <n> --body '@cubic-dev-ai review'
   

3. Wait for the bot's acknowledgement, then poll for the review (two to five minutes). Address findings, push, and re-request only after the push.

4. For several PRs, space CodeRabbit requests about an hour apart. When it answers Review limit reached it names the wait itself (Next review available in: 20 minutes) and that figure beats the hourly rule of thumb. cubic has no such limit. Keep a PR / checks passing / reviewer state table and update it after each bot response.

5. When findings are addressed and CI is green, post @coderabbitai approve if the repository requires its approval. It resolves the threads and records an approving review; the squash merge stays a separate step.

6. When a reviewer cannot run (Qodo subscription lapsed, cubic refusing a bot-authored PR on the free plan, CodeRabbit out of credits), say so in the PR summary and fall back to the reviewers that did run plus a local review. Never treat a missing review as an implicit pass.

Common mistakes

• Requesting before CI has registered — the bot reviews a diff that then changes; wait for checks.
• Firing @coderabbitai review on every PR at once — requests queue silently; space them an hour.
• Putting the mention mid-sentence — the bot ignores it; start the comment with it.
• Re-mentioning after Review skipped: N files exceed the limit of 100 — no mention lifts that; reduce the PR to 100 files or fewer.
• Retriggering Qodo while it reports a lapsed subscription — nothing happens; report and move on.
• Waiting for a mention-driven reply from qlty or SonarCloud — read the summary comment they already posted and their check details instead.
• Treating @coderabbitai approve as a merge command — it records an approval; merge with squash as the repository requires.