Coding agents
Build and repair
Existing coding agents can write software, run commands, and produce evidence. The builder is replaceable and never grants acceptance.
Bring your agent →Compare
Code review finds problems. Acceptance decides when the Job is done.
FalseGreen is the independent acceptance layer between software work and trusted completion—not another coding agent, scanner, or PR reviewer.
Review, quality, security, and repository tools can produce valuable evidence. FalseGreen decides whether the total available evidence establishes the frozen definition of done for one bounded Job.
You keep your existing coding agent. The builder, model, and tools can produce work and evidence; FalseGreen remains the independent authority and the builder does not get the final say.
One platform, distinct responsibilities
Each tool answers a different question.
Coding agents build. Tests check expected behavior. Security tools inspect particular risks. Formal tools prove formal statements. CI executes workflows. PR Gate enforces accepted state. FalseGreen decides whether the defined work is actually done.
Tests and CI
Execute configured checks
Tests and CI execute the checks and workflows you configure. A green run is valuable evidence, but it is not a source-bound acceptance decision.
Define a Job →Code review
Find risks and omissions
Human and AI review can surface risky, inconsistent, or incomplete changes. A clean review still does not establish every frozen requirement.
See the proof model →Formal proof tools
Check formal statements
Lean's kernel checks a proof. FalseGreen freezes the exact obligation, source, toolchain, and context, then combines that evidence with the broader contract. It does not solve arbitrary theorems.
See formal verification →FalseGreen acceptance
Decide what done means
FalseGreen freezes the definition of done, evaluates heterogeneous evidence, binds the result to the exact source, and returns Accepted, Failed, or Insufficient Evidence.
See FalseGreen Job →PR Gate
Enforce accepted state
PR Gate does not verify correctness. It asks FalseGreen Core whether the exact commit has a current accepted result, then blocks or permits the normal CI and merge workflow. A new commit requires a new result.
Enforce at merge →Builders are not competitors
The generator is replaceable. The acceptance boundary stays independent.
The coding-agent layer remains swappable. FalseGreen sits outside the builder, regardless of which supported agent or underlying model performs the implementation. They are a platform layer, not a vendor-specific acceptance authority.
Different questions
Evidence and acceptance are different layers.
Tests and CI
Did the configured checks pass?
Security and static analysis
Is a known defect, quality, or security condition present?
AI code review
Does this change look wrong, risky, inconsistent, or incomplete?
FalseGreen acceptance
Did the bounded Job satisfy the definition of done frozen before judgment?
Competitive matrix
Compare the authority each tool actually provides.
✓ means the capability is central and explicit. ◐ marks an adjacent or partial capability. — means it is not the product’s primary function—not that the product lacks value.
| Capability | FalseGreen | Greptile | Sonar | Snyk | Qodo | CodeRabbit | Semgrep | GitHub |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primary purposeThe main problem the product is designed to solve. | Independent bounded acceptance | AI PR review and testing | Static code quality and security | Developer and application security | AI code review and quality rules | AI pull-request review | Code security and static analysis | Repository review, analysis, and merge controls |
| Continuous PR or code reviewReviews changes continuously in the normal developer workflow. | ✓ Yes | ✓ Yes | ◐ Partial | ◐ Partial | ✓ Yes | ✓ Yes | ◐ Partial | ✓ Yes |
| Dedicated security or static analysisSpecialized analysis for code quality, vulnerabilities, or security findings. | — Not primary | ✓ Yes | ✓ Yes | ✓ Yes | ◐ Partial | ✓ Yes | ✓ Yes | ✓ Yes |
| Frozen human-defined definition of doneThe bounded acceptance target is established before implementation is judged. | ✓ Yes | ◐ Partial | ◐ Partial | ◐ Partial | ◐ Partial | ◐ Partial | ◐ Partial | ◐ Partial |
| Frozen Job target preserved through repairThe agreed Job target remains authoritative while the implementation is repaired and reverified. | ✓ Yes | — Not primary | ◐ Partial | ◐ Partial | ◐ Partial | ◐ Partial | ◐ Partial | ◐ Partial |
| Separate Job acceptance authorityA distinct authority decides whether the separately bounded Job is accepted. | ✓ Yes | — Not primary | — Not primary | — Not primary | — Not primary | — Not primary | — Not primary | — Not primary |
| Job or outcome-level acceptanceAnswers whether the requested bounded engineering outcome is complete. | ✓ Yes | — Not primary | — Not primary | — Not primary | ◐ Partial | ◐ Partial | — Not primary | — Not primary |
| Exact-source-bound acceptanceAcceptance belongs explicitly to the exact source state that earned it. | ✓ Yes | ◐ Partial | ◐ Partial | ◐ Partial | ◐ Partial | ◐ Partial | ◐ Partial | ◐ Partial |
| Repair against unchanged requirementsRepairs can be reverified while the original acceptance target remains frozen. | ✓ Yes | ◐ Partial | ◐ Partial | ◐ Partial | ◐ Partial | ◐ Partial | ◐ Partial | ◐ Partial |
| Heterogeneous evidence for acceptanceTests, CI, scanners, formal tools, behavior, and inspection can inform one Job decision. | ✓ Yes | ◐ Partial | ◐ Partial | — Not primary | ◐ Partial | ◐ Partial | ◐ Partial | ◐ Partial |
| Explicit bounded resultReturns Accepted, Failed, or Insufficient Evidence for the bounded Job. | ✓ Yes | ◐ Partial | ◐ Partial | ◐ Partial | ◐ Partial | ◐ Partial | ◐ Partial | ◐ Partial |
| Exact-source enforcementCan enforce an issued decision against the current source state. | ✓ Yes | ◐ Partial | ◐ Partial | ◐ Partial | ◐ Partial | ◐ Partial | ◐ Partial | ✓ Yes |
FalseGreen
- Primary purpose
- Independent bounded acceptance
- Continuous PR or code review
- ✓ Yes
- Dedicated security or static analysis
- — Not primary
- Frozen human-defined definition of done
- ✓ Yes
- Frozen Job target preserved through repair
- ✓ Yes
- Separate Job acceptance authority
- ✓ Yes
- Job or outcome-level acceptance
- ✓ Yes
- Exact-source-bound acceptance
- ✓ Yes
- Repair against unchanged requirements
- ✓ Yes
- Heterogeneous evidence for acceptance
- ✓ Yes
- Explicit bounded result
- ✓ Yes
- Exact-source enforcement
- ✓ Yes
Greptile
- Primary purpose
- AI PR review and testing
- Continuous PR or code review
- ✓ Yes
- Dedicated security or static analysis
- ✓ Yes
- Frozen human-defined definition of done
- ◐ Partial
- Frozen Job target preserved through repair
- — Not primary
- Separate Job acceptance authority
- — Not primary
- Job or outcome-level acceptance
- — Not primary
- Exact-source-bound acceptance
- ◐ Partial
- Repair against unchanged requirements
- ◐ Partial
- Heterogeneous evidence for acceptance
- ◐ Partial
- Explicit bounded result
- ◐ Partial
- Exact-source enforcement
- ◐ Partial
Sonar
- Primary purpose
- Static code quality and security
- Continuous PR or code review
- ◐ Partial
- Dedicated security or static analysis
- ✓ Yes
- Frozen human-defined definition of done
- ◐ Partial
- Frozen Job target preserved through repair
- ◐ Partial
- Separate Job acceptance authority
- — Not primary
- Job or outcome-level acceptance
- — Not primary
- Exact-source-bound acceptance
- ◐ Partial
- Repair against unchanged requirements
- ◐ Partial
- Heterogeneous evidence for acceptance
- ◐ Partial
- Explicit bounded result
- ◐ Partial
- Exact-source enforcement
- ◐ Partial
Snyk
- Primary purpose
- Developer and application security
- Continuous PR or code review
- ◐ Partial
- Dedicated security or static analysis
- ✓ Yes
- Frozen human-defined definition of done
- ◐ Partial
- Frozen Job target preserved through repair
- ◐ Partial
- Separate Job acceptance authority
- — Not primary
- Job or outcome-level acceptance
- — Not primary
- Exact-source-bound acceptance
- ◐ Partial
- Repair against unchanged requirements
- ◐ Partial
- Heterogeneous evidence for acceptance
- — Not primary
- Explicit bounded result
- ◐ Partial
- Exact-source enforcement
- ◐ Partial
Qodo
- Primary purpose
- AI code review and quality rules
- Continuous PR or code review
- ✓ Yes
- Dedicated security or static analysis
- ◐ Partial
- Frozen human-defined definition of done
- ◐ Partial
- Frozen Job target preserved through repair
- ◐ Partial
- Separate Job acceptance authority
- — Not primary
- Job or outcome-level acceptance
- ◐ Partial
- Exact-source-bound acceptance
- ◐ Partial
- Repair against unchanged requirements
- ◐ Partial
- Heterogeneous evidence for acceptance
- ◐ Partial
- Explicit bounded result
- ◐ Partial
- Exact-source enforcement
- ◐ Partial
CodeRabbit
- Primary purpose
- AI pull-request review
- Continuous PR or code review
- ✓ Yes
- Dedicated security or static analysis
- ✓ Yes
- Frozen human-defined definition of done
- ◐ Partial
- Frozen Job target preserved through repair
- ◐ Partial
- Separate Job acceptance authority
- — Not primary
- Job or outcome-level acceptance
- ◐ Partial
- Exact-source-bound acceptance
- ◐ Partial
- Repair against unchanged requirements
- ◐ Partial
- Heterogeneous evidence for acceptance
- ◐ Partial
- Explicit bounded result
- ◐ Partial
- Exact-source enforcement
- ◐ Partial
Semgrep
- Primary purpose
- Code security and static analysis
- Continuous PR or code review
- ◐ Partial
- Dedicated security or static analysis
- ✓ Yes
- Frozen human-defined definition of done
- ◐ Partial
- Frozen Job target preserved through repair
- ◐ Partial
- Separate Job acceptance authority
- — Not primary
- Job or outcome-level acceptance
- — Not primary
- Exact-source-bound acceptance
- ◐ Partial
- Repair against unchanged requirements
- ◐ Partial
- Heterogeneous evidence for acceptance
- ◐ Partial
- Explicit bounded result
- ◐ Partial
- Exact-source enforcement
- ◐ Partial
GitHub code review, CodeQL, and rulesets
- Primary purpose
- Repository review, analysis, and merge controls
- Continuous PR or code review
- ✓ Yes
- Dedicated security or static analysis
- ✓ Yes
- Frozen human-defined definition of done
- ◐ Partial
- Frozen Job target preserved through repair
- ◐ Partial
- Separate Job acceptance authority
- — Not primary
- Job or outcome-level acceptance
- — Not primary
- Exact-source-bound acceptance
- ◐ Partial
- Repair against unchanged requirements
- ◐ Partial
- Heterogeneous evidence for acceptance
- ◐ Partial
- Explicit bounded result
- ◐ Partial
- Exact-source enforcement
- ✓ Yes
FalseGreen now participates in pull-request delivery through source-bound PR acceptance. PR Gate carries the result into the normal workflow; it does not perform generic code review or replace specialist security scanners.
Why the distinction matters
A clean check is not the same claim as a completed Job.
Review can find no issues.
That still may not establish that the requested behavior exists.
A scanner can be green.
That can remain silent about missing business or lifecycle behavior.
Acceptance starts with the outcome.
FalseGreen freezes the target first and judges the finished result against it.
ACCEPT does not mean universally correct or bug-free. It means the applicable frozen requirements were established for the accepted source state within the stated evidence and limitations.
Detailed comparisons
Choose the tool for the question you need answered.
Compare
FalseGreen vs Greptile
Greptile independently validates pull requests with codebase-aware review, security analysis, and runtime testing. FalseGreen separately freezes the Job target and owns the bounded acceptance decision.
Read the comparison →Compare
FalseGreen vs Sonar
Sonar measures code against static quality and security conditions. FalseGreen can verify those conditions as evidence and decide whether the complete bounded outcome is actually accepted.
Read the comparison →Compare
FalseGreen vs Snyk
Snyk finds and helps remediate application-security risk. FalseGreen can verify declared security conditions and decide whether the complete bounded engineering outcome satisfied its frozen requirements.
Read the comparison →Compare
FalseGreen vs Qodo
Qodo brings linked requirements and organizational rules into AI-assisted code review. FalseGreen preserves a separate human-defined acceptance authority for one bounded Job.
Read the comparison →Compare
FalseGreen vs CodeRabbit
CodeRabbit reviews pull requests and applies configurable pre-merge checks. FalseGreen creates a separate Job authority whose target is frozen before implementation is judged.
Read the comparison →Compare
FalseGreen vs Semgrep
Semgrep detects and helps remediate code-security problems. FalseGreen can verify declared security conditions and decide whether the complete bounded Job satisfied its frozen definition of done.
Read the comparison →Compare
FalseGreen vs GitHub
GitHub hosts review, analysis, checks, and merge controls. FalseGreen supplies the independent authority that decides whether a bounded Job earned acceptance.
Read the comparison →Complementary controls
Keep the tools that inspect software.
Sonar, Snyk, Semgrep, Greptile, Qodo, CodeRabbit, and GitHub can continue producing findings, reviews, checks, and enforcement. FalseGreen does not require replacing them.
Independent acceptance
Add the boundary when the outcome matters.
Use FalseGreen when “done” needs to mean more than “the configured checks are green.” See the acceptance control planeor review how the acceptance boundary works.
Delivery enforcement
Let PR Gate carry the result to merge.
PR Gate does not replace verification. It checks that the exact source head has a current FalseGreen result before allowing the ordinary CI and merge workflow to proceed.
Already have verification? Enforce it at merge →When the Job matters