Security is a pass, not the whole review.
Snyk finds CVEs. GitSniff reviews the code, reasons about intent, and writes the fix.
The differences that matter.
Three reasons teams move to GitSniff.
Reviews, not just alerts.
Snyk tells you a CVE exists. GitSniff explains the call site, suggests a fix, and evaluates the surrounding logic.
One surface for one PR.
Security, readability, and architecture feedback arrive together. No separate dashboard for developers to ignore.
Context-aware fixes.
An LLM reads the diff, understands the repo, and writes a patch that compiles. Templates do not.
The full picture.
Bearer, Semgrep, Trivy
Three scanners run in parallel for secrets, SAST, and vulnerable dependencies.
AI-filtered noise
The review model triages scanner output and drops findings the PR never actually exposes.
Chat about findings
Ask why a finding matters. Get an answer grounded in the diff, not a generic CVE writeup.
Readability suggestions
Complexity, naming, and structural feedback ship alongside the security report.
Performance hints
Hot-path patterns, N+1 queries, and memory concerns surface in the same review.
One-click patches
Every issue, security or otherwise, ships with an applicable diff.
Keep Snyk if you love it. Add the rest.
Many teams run GitSniff alongside Snyk. You keep the compliance workflow, and developers finally get feedback on the code itself.