Back to browse
Continue – Source-controlled AI checks, enforceable in CI

Continue – Source-controlled AI checks, enforceable in CI

by sestinj·Feb 17, 2026·44 points·7 comments

AI Analysis

●●SolidShip ItSolve My ProblemBig Brain

Source-controlled PR checks that agents can fix; solves agent code review at scale.

Strengths
  • Markdown-defined checks live in repo; agents can read/write files and run bash, not just diff analysis.
  • Directly tackles real pain: agent-generated code volume outpacing human review capacity.
  • One-click diff accept/reject from GitHub; integrates cleanly into existing workflows.
Weaknesses
  • Requires Claude Code or compatible agent; limited to agentic workflows, not human-review-focused teams.
  • Pricing and self-host roadmap not detailed; vendor lock-in risk if GitHub-only.
Target Audience

Teams shipping with AI agents, high-velocity codebases with review fatigue

Similar To

GitHub Advanced Security · SonarQube · Codacy

Post Description

We now write most of our code with agents. For a while, PRs piled up, causing review fatigue, and we had this sinking feeling that standards were slipping. Consistency is tough at this volume. I’m sharing the solution we found, which has become our main product.

Continue (https://docs.continue.dev) runs AI checks on every PR. Each check is a source-controlled markdown file in `.continue/checks/` that shows up as a GitHub status check. They run as full agents, not just reading the diff, but able to read/write files, run bash commands, and use a browser. If it finds something, the check fails with one click to accept a diff. Otherwise, it passes silently.

Here’s one of ours:

```.continue/checks/metrics-integrity.md

--- name: Metrics Integrity description: Detects changes that could inflate, deflate, or corrupt metrics (session counts, event accuracy, etc.) ---

Review this PR for changes that could unintentionally distort metrics. These bugs are insidious because they corrupt dashboards without triggering errors or test failures.

Check for: - "Find or create" patterns where the "find" is too narrow, causing entity duplication (e.g. querying only active sessions, missing completed ones, so every new commit creates a duplicate) - Event tracking calls inside loops or retry paths that fire multiple times per logical action - Refactors that accidentally remove or move tracking calls to a path that executes with different frequency

Key files: anything containing `posthog.capture` or `trackEvent`

```

This check passed without noise for weeks, but then caught a PR that would have silently deflated our session counts. We added it in the first place because we’d been burned in the past by bad data, only noticing when a dashboard looked off.

---

To get started, paste this into Claude Code or your coding agent of choice:

Help me write checks for this codebase: https://continue.dev/walkthrough

It will:

- Explore the codebase and use the `gh` CLI to read past review comments

- Write checks to `.continue/checks/`

- Optionally, show you how to run them locally or in CI

Would love your feedback!

Similar Projects

AI/ML●●Solid

Open Bias – proxy that enforces agent behavior at runtime

Local proxy enforcing markdown rules on LLM output before it hits production.

Solve My ProblemShip It
algomaniac
2141mo ago
AI/MLMid

ProjectOS – An AI operating system for truth and control

Manifest-driven governance for AI agents when LangGraph and CrewAI already handle orchestration.

Bold BetShip It
khaeldur
103mo ago