Connect a GitHub repo and a team of specialist agents audits it across security, scalability, SEO, and production readiness — then writes the fixes and opens a pull request you review like any other.
Your repo is cloned into a real working directory. The agents read the actual files, cite real paths and line numbers, and every response they give you is audited for hallucination before you act on it.
Three steps. You stay in control at every one of them.
Link a GitHub repository. It is cloned into a real working directory — the agents read your actual code, not a description of it.
Chat with the team about the real codebase. Brain audits and plans, Cody executes. You approve each phase before it moves on.
Cody commits and pushes to a branch, then opens a PR. You review a normal diff on GitHub and merge when you are satisfied.
Every audit scores your repo 1–10 on each pillar, names the top two critical fixes with specific file paths, and ranks the highest-ROI improvements overall.
Exposed secrets, missing auth guards, injection vulnerabilities (SQL, XSS, CSRF), insecure headers, OWASP Top 10.
Performance bottlenecks, missing caching, N+1 queries, absent rate limiting, connection pool issues.
Missing meta and Open Graph tags, no sitemap.xml or robots.txt, Core Web Vitals problems, absent structured data.
Hardcoded mock data, missing error handling, no logging or observability, incomplete environment config.
Six specialists, each with a defined job. Only one of them can change your code — the rest advise, and you can see exactly which is which.
Analytical Advisor
Audits the target repo for production readiness and plans the work across all four pillars. Breaks findings into specific tasks and hands them to Cody.
Advises onlyCode Architect
The only agent that touches your code. Works in a real clone of your repo with a live shell — reads files, greps, edits, commits, pushes, and opens the PR.
Writes codeSecurity Hardening Lead
Reviews OWASP findings, hardens auth and architecture, and surfaces risk before it reaches production.
Advises onlySEO Growth Analyst
Plans technical SEO strategy, writes content briefs, and compiles War Room conversations into structured execution prompts.
Advises onlyScale Readiness Engineer
Drives the productionizer pipeline end to end — scan, transform, security, devops, and PR phases.
Advises onlyUI/UX Designer
Actually looks at your app. Screenshots your live preview and gives plain-English feedback on layout, accessibility, conversion clarity, and mobile.
Advises onlyA single assistant reviewing its own work has one blind spot in two places: whatever it failed to consider when writing the code, it will fail to consider again when checking it. Marking your own homework does not find that class of error.
Higharch 5 splits the work across specialists running on different frontier model families, so the agent that reviews is rarely the agent that wrote. Henry looks for security risk with a security lens. Maya looks at the rendered page, not the source. Brain plans; Cody executes. Different vantage points fail in different places — which is precisely what makes the overlap useful.
You are the final check. Phases advance only when you approve them, and the work arrives as an ordinary pull request — a diff you can read, question, and reject.
The problem with AI coding tools is not that they are wrong sometimes — it is that they are wrong confidently. So a separate auditor grades every answer the team gives you, and it never grades its own work.
Invented packages, API methods, file paths, or function signatures
Plausible-sounding technical logic that is simply wrong
TODO stubs, unimplemented functions, truncated logic, missing error handling
"should be fine", "probably works", "may exist" — speculation dressed as fact
A finding asserted with no file path or line number to back it
Describing the platform as if it were your repository
Each response starts at 100 and loses points per violation — 25 for a critical one, 10 for a warning, 3 for a note. Anything that scores below 70, or trips a single critical violation, gets flagged in the chat with the exact quote that caused it, so you can see what to distrust rather than being told to distrust everything.
It runs after the response streams, so it never slows the team down, and it is built so that a failure in the auditor can never break your session. Hedging is treated as a defect here: "should be fine" and "probably works" are flagged, because a confident guess is harder to catch than an obvious error.
Nothing advances on its own. The work stops at every gate until you move it forward.
Discover
Scan the repo, surface issues and gaps
Plan
Prioritise the fixes worth making
Design
Settle the architecture and approach
Build
Cody writes the real code changes
Review
Security and quality pass before shipping
Ship
Open the PR and deploy
Connect a repository and see what the audit finds. You approve everything before it changes.
Connect Your GitHub