--- title: CodeRabbit uses GPT-6.1 Sol as the main model in its... description: CodeRabbit uses GPT-6.1 Sol as the main model powering its security agent. The model traces behavior across files and components to catch issues that arise... canonical: https://daily.dev/posts/coderabbit-uses-gpt-6-1-sol-as-the-main-model-in-its-security-agent-z4yvavrhx twitter:card: summary_large_image twitter:site: @dailydotdev og:type: website og:site_name: daily.dev og:title: CodeRabbit uses GPT-6.1 Sol as the main model in its security agent | daily.dev og:description: CodeRabbit uses GPT-6.1 Sol as the main model powering its security agent. The model traces behavior across files and components to catch issues that arise... og:url: https://daily.dev/posts/coderabbit-uses-gpt-6-1-sol-as-the-main-model-in-its-security-agent-z4yvavrhx og:image: https://api.daily.dev/og/posts/Z4YVAvRHX.png og:image:alt: CodeRabbit uses GPT-6.1 Sol as the main model in its security agent og:image:width: 1200 og:image:height: 630 og:locale: en --- > ## Documentation Index > Fetch the complete documentation index at: https://daily.dev/llms.txt > Use this file to discover all available pages before exploring further. # CodeRabbit uses GPT-6.1 Sol as the main model in its security agent **[Collections](https://daily.dev/sources/collections)** · 2 min read · 0 upvotes · 0 comments ## Summary CodeRabbit uses GPT-6.1 Sol as the main model powering its security agent. The model traces behavior across files and components to catch issues that arise from how pieces of code interact, not just within a single function. In Deep Scan it investigates across repositories, while CodeRabbit Secure extends this to linked repositories, such as a shared authentication library used by multiple services. For selected findings, the agent can try to verify an exploit in an isolated sandbox and, for supported issues, draft a pull request with a proposed fix. CodeRabbit says it uses the model to flag security-related issues across thousands of repositories and organizations, though human reviewers make the final call on shipping changes. ## Content CodeRabbit has made GPT-6.1 Sol the primary model in its security agent. The goal is to catch security problems that only show up when you follow behavior across files and components, which is where single-file review tends to miss things. OpenAIDevs highlighted the integration, saying developers are using it to find security risks across complex codebases. ## How it works In Deep Scan, the model investigates across a whole repository. CodeRabbit Secure extends that to linked repositories, such as a shared authentication library that several services depend on. For findings a user selects, the agent can try to verify the exploit in an isolated sandbox. It doesn't test production systems. For supported issues, it can also draft a pull request with a proposed fix. CodeRabbit says it is using GPT-6.1 Sol to flag security-related issues across thousands of repositories and organizations. ## A simple workflow @svpino, pointing to the recent security mess, suggested a quick way to try it on your own projects: 1. Connect a repository to CodeRabbit Secure. 2. Run Deep Scan. 3. Get back a list of weaknesses and suggested solutions. 4. Review the list and approve whatever you want fixed. That last step matters. Human reviewers still decide which changes ship. The model finds and proposes, and people make the call. ## Questions this post answers ### What model does CodeRabbit use for its security agent now? CodeRabbit uses GPT-6.1 Sol as the primary model in its security agent. The model traces behavior across files and components to catch security issues that arise from interactions between pieces of code, rather than within a single function. It powers both Deep Scan, which investigates across repositories, and CodeRabbit Secure, which also covers linked repositories such as a shared authentication library. _Teams evaluating AI security review tools can track model and feature changes like this on daily.dev._ ### Can an AI security agent actually test exploits it finds in my code? Yes, CodeRabbit's security agent can attempt to verify an exploit in an isolated sandbox for findings a user selects, but it does not test production systems. For supported issues it can also draft a pull request with a proposed fix, though a human reviewer still decides whether the change ships. _Developers weighing automated exploit verification against manual review follow tools like this on daily.dev._ ## Community take How the wider developer community reacted, aggregated from 1 discussion and 59 comments across x (as of 2026-10-27). **TL;DR:** Reactions mix curiosity and cautious optimism about cross-file/cross-repo security tracing with persistent worry that false-positive noise will get the tool muted if it can't prove reachability of flagged risks. **Sentiment:** 30% positive · 45% mixed · 25% skeptical **The case for** - Testing a suspected flaw in a sandbox before sending a fix is seen as more useful than a scary warning alone. - Findings paired with a concrete reproducible failing case are the ones people say they actually act on. - Running a separate reviewer model on an agent's own diff before merging is viewed as a good habit worth adopting. - Automating triage of auth/injection/secret-hardcoding risks before human review is seen as a real time-saver. **The pushback** - Many worry about noisy false positives (e.g. flagging dummy API keys in test fixtures) causing the tool to get muted. - Several ask whether Sol actually traces risk across files/services or just reviews the diff plus nearby files, doubting real cross-repo tracing. - Commenters note that finding the bug is easy — triaging and proving it's reachable/exploitable is the actual hard, unsolved part. - Concern that a tool starting cold each scan will re-flag already-dismissed risks, wasting reviewer time. - Skepticism about a model grading its own or a related agent's code being just 'a second opinion from the same brain'. **By community** - x (mixed): Curiosity about real-world accuracy and cross-file tracing is balanced by repeated concern over false-positive noise and whether findings are truly reachable/exploitable. **Hottest debate:** Whether Sol genuinely traces risk across files/services end-to-end or is still effectively a diff-level reviewer that just surfaces more noise. **Open questions** - Does Sol trace data flow and call graphs across services, or only the hunk plus nearby files? - How many flagged risks turn out to be real, and what is the false-positive rate? - Does it check for secrets sitting in git history, or only in the current diff? - Does it attach a confidence score or reproduction/exploit path to each finding? - Does CodeRabbit store prior triage verdicts so re-scans don't re-flag already-dismissed risks? **Highlights** > @OpenAIDevs @coderabbitai For AI security review, ask for the attack path rather than just the finding: where untrusted input comes in, which code it passes through and what an attacker ends up with. Anything it can't trace end to end goes in a separate pile to check, which keeps the noise down. > — [CallumUsesAI on x](https://x.com/CallumUsesAI/status/2114838016351203623) > @OpenAIDevs @coderabbitai The hard part after an AI flags a risk is proving it's reachable. A finding that says which input reaches which sink, under what permissions, gets fixed. One that just pattern-matches gets muted within days. > — [lucasfutures1 on x](https://x.com/lucasfutures1/status/2114932496429355509) > @OpenAIDevs @coderabbitai Finding bugs got cheap. Remembering which ones you already triaged is still the job, and a reviewer that starts each scan cold re-flags the same accepted risk you dismissed last Tuesday. That is why people mute it. Store the verdict and the reason where the next session loads it > — [johnroodepic on x](https://x.com/johnroodepic/status/2114847340272255353) > @OpenAIDevs @coderabbitai Broken access control is #1 on the OWASP Top 10, and it's the one a diff-only review misses: the missing check sits in a route or middleware the PR never touched. Curious whether Sol gets the call graph of the changed functions or just the hunk plus nearby files. > — [renandnzsantos on x](https://x.com/renandnzsantos/status/2114838873855672563) > @OpenAIDevs @coderabbitai For cross-repository findings, I’d want the sandbox result tied to exact commits and dependency versions from both repos. A reproducible failure on the deployed combination is stronger evidence than a plausible path through two separately indexed codebases. > — [cooolernemesis on x](https://x.com/cooolernemesis/status/2115007798467522670) **Source threads** - [x](https://x.com/OpenAIDevs/status/2114837274550747603) · 1 points · 59 comments ## Similar posts on daily.dev - [How CodeRabbit Actually Works](https://daily.dev/posts/how-coderabbit-actually-works-bqflbkjd8) · Medium · 0 upvotes · 0 comments - [How Figma stays ahead of vulnerabilities with agents](https://daily.dev/posts/how-figma-stays-ahead-of-vulnerabilities-with-agents-uui6x4kvc) · Figma · 0 upvotes · 0 comments - [Top 5 AI code review tools in 2026](https://daily.dev/posts/top-5-ai-code-review-tools-in-2026-v6qxjn0jz) · LogRocket · 5 upvotes · 0 comments - [How CodeRabbit’s Agentic Code Validation helps with code reviews](https://daily.dev/posts/how-coderabbit-s-agentic-code-validation-helps-with-code-reviews-kqvgpyk0k) · Foojay.io · 1 upvotes · 0 comments --- Tags: [#openai](https://daily.dev/tags/openai), [#ai-coding](https://daily.dev/tags/ai-coding), [#appsec](https://daily.dev/tags/appsec) [View this post on daily.dev](https://daily.dev/posts/coderabbit-uses-gpt-6-1-sol-as-the-main-model-in-its-security-agent-z4yvavrhx) ```json {"@context":"https://schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https://daily.dev/#organization","name":"daily.dev","url":"https://daily.dev","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https://daily.dev/apple-touch-icon.png","width":180,"height":180},"sameAs":["https://twitter.com/dailydotdev","https://github.com/dailydotdev","https://www.linkedin.com/company/daily-dev-ltd"]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https://daily.dev/#website","url":"https://daily.dev","name":"daily.dev","publisher":{"@id":"https://daily.dev/#organization"},"potentialAction":{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https://daily.dev/search?q={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}}]} {"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"TechArticle","headline":"CodeRabbit uses GPT-6.1 Sol as the main model in its security agent","url":"https://daily.dev/posts/coderabbit-uses-gpt-6-1-sol-as-the-main-model-in-its-security-agent-z4yvavrhx","mainEntityOfPage":{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https://daily.dev/posts/coderabbit-uses-gpt-6-1-sol-as-the-main-model-in-its-security-agent-z4yvavrhx"},"datePublished":"2026-10-26T22:23:36.175Z","dateModified":"2026-10-27T15:33:38.069Z","description":"CodeRabbit uses GPT-6.1 Sol as the main model powering its security agent. The model traces behavior across files and components to catch issues that arise...","image":"https://media.daily.dev/image/upload/f_auto,q_auto/v1/posts/0f30471acb93ee6acf60fb6261c1339b?_a=AQAEuop","thumbnailUrl":"https://media.daily.dev/image/upload/f_auto,q_auto/v1/posts/0f30471acb93ee6acf60fb6261c1339b?_a=AQAEuop","isAccessibleForFree":true,"articleSection":"Collections","inLanguage":"en","publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"daily.dev","url":"https://daily.dev","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https://daily.dev/apple-touch-icon.png","width":180,"height":180}},"author":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Collections","logo":"https://media.daily.dev/image/upload/s--fk_6ycEi--/f_auto,q_auto/v1780996001/logos/collections?_a=BAMAMiWQ0","url":"https://daily.dev/sources/collections"},"commentCount":0,"discussionUrl":"https://daily.dev/posts/coderabbit-uses-gpt-6-1-sol-as-the-main-model-in-its-security-agent-z4yvavrhx","interactionStatistic":[{"@type":"InteractionCounter","interactionType":{"@type":"LikeAction"},"userInteractionCount":0},{"@type":"InteractionCounter","interactionType":{"@type":"CommentAction"},"userInteractionCount":0}],"keywords":"openai,ai-coding,appsec","timeRequired":"PT2M"} {"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"BreadcrumbList","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https://daily.dev"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Collections","item":"https://daily.dev/sources/collections"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"CodeRabbit uses GPT-6.1 Sol as the main model in its security agent"}]} {"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"FAQPage","@id":"https://daily.dev/posts/coderabbit-uses-gpt-6-1-sol-as-the-main-model-in-its-security-agent-z4yvavrhx#faq","mainEntity":[{"@type":"Question","name":"What model does CodeRabbit use for its security agent now?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"CodeRabbit uses GPT-6.1 Sol as the primary model in its security agent. The model traces behavior across files and components to catch security issues that arise from interactions between pieces of code, rather than within a single function. It powers both Deep Scan, which investigates across repositories, and CodeRabbit Secure, which also covers linked repositories such as a shared authentication library. Teams evaluating AI security review tools can track model and feature changes like this on daily.dev."}},{"@type":"Question","name":"Can an AI security agent actually test exploits it finds in my code?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"Yes, CodeRabbit's security agent can attempt to verify an exploit in an isolated sandbox for findings a user selects, but it does not test production systems. For supported issues it can also draft a pull request with a proposed fix, though a human reviewer still decides whether the change ships. Developers weighing automated exploit verification against manual review follow tools like this on daily.dev."}}]} ```