Actually very similar, GitHub was also early in talking about Continuous AI. I think the biggest difference is that Continue is very focused on the use case of checks and gets a lot of the small details right that really matter because it's not built for generic non-AI CI workflows

Some of these are:

- Having a local experience to run them with Claude Code, etc.

- Making it easy to accept/reject suggested changes

- A single folder dedicated to just checks so you don't have to think about triggers

- Built-in feedback loops so you can tune your checks with feedback

- Metrics so you can easily track which have a high suggestion / merge rate

Are you using a lot of `gh-aw`?

I think this is a good summary! And the configurable part turns out to be the main bit

One of the fundamental differences between checks and code review bots is that you trade breadth for consistency. There are two things Continue should never, ever do:

1. find a surprise bug or offer an unsolicited opinion

2. fail to catch a commit that doesn't meet your specific standards

That's us! I figure others will wonder the same, so we wrote about what exactly we're doing here: https://blog.continue.dev/from-extension-to-mission-control

tl;dr

- a _lot_ of people still use the VS Code extension and so we're still putting energy toward keeping it polished (this becomes easier with checks : ))

- our checks product is powered by an open-source CLI (we think this is important), which we recommend for jetbrains users

- the general goal is the same: we start by building tools for ourselves, share them with people in a way that avoids creating walled gardens, and aim to amplify developers (https://amplified.dev)