CodeAnt AI Raises USD 2 Mn in Seed Funding to Streamline Code Review with AI
The company's platform is already being used by over 50 organisations, including Akasa Air, Cyient, Bureau and KukuFM
You're reading Entrepreneur India, an international franchise of Entrepreneur Media.
CodeAnt AI, a startup developing an artificial intelligence-powered code review platform, has raised USD two million in a seed funding round led by Y Combinator and Uncorrelated Ventures. The round was led by Y Combinator and Uncorrelated Ventures, and also saw participation from VitalStage Ventures, DeVC, Transpose Platform, Entrepreneur First, and several angel investors. This marks CodeAnt AI's first institutional funding round, valuing the company at USD 20 million.
Founded by Amartya Jha and Chinmay Bharti, CodeAnt AI aims to automate the traditionally manual process of code reviews, enabling engineering teams to reduce bugs and turnaround time by more than 50 per cent. The company's AI-based system integrates into developer workflows to improve code quality and security without slowing down release cycles.
"Today, when a developer submits a change request, it often sits idle for hours or even days waiting for peer review," said Amartya Jha, Co-founder and CEO of CodeAnt AI. "And even when a reviewer does pick it up, they rarely have full context. This is a critical risk point, most software bugs and vulnerabilities slip through at this stage. CodeAnt AI is built to do both helping companies move faster and stay competitive without compromising on security or code quality."
The company's platform is already being used by over 50 organisations, including Akasa Air, Cyient, Bureau and KukuFM. It integrates with GitHub, GitLab, Bitbucket and Azure DevOps, offering real-time code suggestions and instant security feedback across more than 30 programming languages. CodeAnt AI also provides one-click fixes, aiming to transform time-consuming peer reviews into five-minute sessions.
"With more and more code being generated by AI, code review has never been more important. CodeAnt fits into your CI/CD pipeline and ensures that only high-quality code makes it into production, not AI-generated slop," said Tom Blomfield, Partner at Y Combinator.
"Even a single missed bug can have high financial costs. We wanted to build a system that eliminates that uncertainty," Chinmay Bharti, Co-founder added.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Gizmodo
27 minutes ago
- Gizmodo
Wikipedia Tries to Calm Fury Over New AI-Generated Summaries Proposal
The denizens of the open web don't want anything to do with AI. The Wikimedia Foundation, the organization behind Wikipedia, made the unfortunate decision to announce the trial of a new AI-fueled article generator this week. The backlash from the site's editors was so swift and so vengeful that the organization quickly walked back its idea, announcing a temporary 'pause' of the new feature. A spokesperson on behalf of the Foundation—which is largely separate from the decentralized community of editors that populate the site with articles—explained last week that, in an effort to make wikis 'more accessible to readers globally through different projects around content discovery,' the organization planned to trial 'machine-generated, but editor moderated, simple summaries for readers.' Like many other organizations that have been plagued by new automated features, Wikipedia's rank and file were quick to anger over the experimental new tool. The responses, which are posted to the open web, are truly something to behold. 'What the hell? No, absolutely not,' said one editor. 'Not in any form or shape. Not on any device. Not on any version. I don't even know where to begin with everything that is wrong with this mindless PR hype stunt.' 'This will destroy whatever reputation for accuracy we currently have,' another editor said. 'People aren't going to read past the AI fluff to see what we really meant.' Yet another editor was even more vehement: 'Keep AI out of Wikipedia. That is all. WMF staffers looking to pad their resumes with AI-related projects need to be looking for new employers.' 'A truly ghastly idea,' said another. 'Since all WMF proposals steamroller on despite what the actual community says, I hope I will at least see the survey and that—unlike some WMF surveys—it includes one or more options to answer 'NO'.' 'Are y'all (by that, I mean WMF) trying to kill Wikipedia? Because this is a good step in that way,' another editor said. 'We're trying to keep AI out of Wikipedia, not have the powers that be force it on us and tell us we like it.' The forum is littered with countless other negative responses from editors who expressed a categorical rejection of the tool. Not long afterward, the organization paused the feature, 404 Media reported. 'The Wikimedia Foundation has been exploring ways to make Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects more accessible to readers globally,' a Wikimedia Foundation spokesperson told 404 Media. 'This two-week, opt-in experiment was focused on making complex Wikipedia articles more accessible to people with different reading levels. For the purposes of this experiment, the summaries were generated by an open-weight Aya model by Cohere. It was meant to gauge interest in a feature like this, and to help us think about the right kind of community moderation systems to ensure humans remain central to deciding what information is shown on Wikipedia.'
Bloomberg
37 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Stock Movers: Boeing, Oracle, Oxford
On this episode of Stock Movers: - Boeing (BA) shares drop after 787 Dreamliner aircraft operated by Air India crashed shortly after taking off in Ahmedabad, with 242 passengers and crew on board, and no reports of survivors. - Oracle (ORCL) shares rose after projecting cloud infrastructure sales will jump more than 70% in the current fiscal year, boosting investor enthusiasm for the closely watched business. - Oxford Industries (OXM) shares fell after the owner of the Tommy Bahama apparel brand slashed its profit forecast for the fiscal year
Yahoo
42 minutes ago
- Yahoo
AI literacy: What it is, what it isn't, who needs it and why it's hard to define
It is 'the policy of the United States to promote AI literacy and proficiency among Americans,' reads an executive order President Donald Trump issued on April 23, 2025. The executive order, titled Advancing Artificial Intelligence Education for American Youth, signals that advancing AI literacy is now an official national priority. This raises a series of important questions: What exactly is AI literacy, who needs it, and how do you go about building it thoughtfully and responsibly? The implications of AI literacy, or lack thereof, are far-reaching. They extend beyond national ambitions to remain 'a global leader in this technological revolution' or even prepare an 'AI-skilled workforce,' as the executive order states. Without basic literacy, citizens and consumers are not well equipped to understand the algorithmic platforms and decisions that affect so many domains of their lives: government services, privacy, lending, health care, news recommendations and more. And the lack of AI literacy risks ceding important aspects of society's future to a handful of multinational companies. How, then, can institutions help people understand and use – or resist – AI as individuals, workers, parents, innovators, job seekers, students, employers and citizens? We are a policy scientist and two educational researchers who study AI literacy, and we explore these issues in our research. At its foundation, AI literacy includes a mix of knowledge, skills and attitudes that are technical, social and ethical in nature. According to one prominent definition, AI literacy refers to 'a set of competencies that enables individuals to critically evaluate AI technologies; communicate and collaborate effectively with AI; and use AI as a tool online, at home, and in the workplace.' AI literacy is not simply programming or the mechanics of neural networks, and it is certainly not just prompt engineering – that is, the act of carefully writing prompts for chatbots. Vibe coding, or using AI to write software code, might be fun and important, but restricting the definition of literacy to the newest trend or the latest need of employers won't cover the bases in the long term. And while a single master definition may not be needed, or even desirable, too much variation makes it tricky to decide on organizational, educational or policy strategies. Who needs AI literacy? Everyone, including the employees and students using it, and the citizens grappling with its growing impacts. Every sector and sphere of society is now involved with AI, even if this isn't always easy for people to see. Exactly how much literacy everyone needs and how to get there is a much tougher question. Are a few quick HR training sessions enough, or do we need to embed AI across K-12 curricula and deliver university micro credentials and hands-on workshops? There is much that researchers don't know, which leads to the need to measure AI literacy and the effectiveness of different training approaches. While there is a growing and bipartisan consensus that AI literacy matters, there's much less consensus on how to actually understand people's AI literacy levels. Researchers have focused on different aspects, such as technical or ethical skills, or on different populations – for example, business managers and students – or even on subdomains like generative AI. A recent review study identified more than a dozen questionnaires designed to measure AI literacy, the vast majority of which rely on self-reported responses to questions and statements such as 'I feel confident about using AI.' There's also a lack of testing to see whether these questionnaires work well for people from different cultural backgrounds. Moreover, the rise of generative AI has exposed gaps and challenges: Is it possible to create a stable way to measure AI literacy when AI is itself so dynamic? In our research collaboration, we've tried to help address some of these problems. In particular, we've focused on creating objective knowledge assessments, such as multiple-choice surveys tested with thorough statistical analyses to ensure that they accurately measure AI literacy. We've so far tested a multiple-choice survey in the U.S., U.K. and Germany and found that it works consistently and fairly across these three countries. There's a lot more work to do to create reliable and feasible testing approaches. But going forward, just asking people to self-report their AI literacy probably isn't enough to understand where different groups of people are and what supports they need. Governments, universities and industry are trying to advance AI literacy. Finland launched the Elements of AI series in 2018 with the hope of educating its general public on AI. Estonia's AI Leap initiative partners with Anthropic and OpenAI to provide access to AI tools for tens of thousands of students and thousands of teachers. And China is now requiring at least eight hours of AI education annually as early as elementary school, which goes a step beyond the new U.S. executive order. On the university level, Purdue University and the University of Pennsylvania have launched new master's in AI programs, targeting future AI leaders. Despite these efforts, these initiatives face an unclear and evolving understanding of AI literacy. They also face challenges to measuring effectiveness and minimal knowledge on what teaching approaches actually work. And there are long-standing issues with respect to equity − for example, reaching schools, communities, segments of the population and businesses that are stretched or under-resourced. Based on our research, experience as educators and collaboration with policymakers and technology companies, we think a few steps might be prudent. Building AI literacy starts with recognizing it's not just about tech: People also need to grasp the social and ethical sides of the technology. To see whether we're getting there, we researchers and educators should use clear, reliable tests that track progress for different age groups and communities. Universities and companies can try out new teaching ideas first, then share what works through an independent hub. Educators, meanwhile, need proper training and resources, not just additional curricula, to bring AI into the classroom. And because opportunity isn't spread evenly, partnerships that reach under-resourced schools and neighborhoods are essential so everyone can benefit. Critically, achieving widespread AI literacy may be even harder than building digital and media literacy, so getting there will require serious investment – not cuts – to education and research. There is widespread consensus that AI literacy is important, whether to boost AI trust and adoption or to empower citizens to challenge AI or shape its future. As with AI itself, we believe it's important to approach AI literacy carefully, avoiding hype or an overly technical focus. The right approach can prepare students to become 'active and responsible participants in the workforce of the future' and empower Americans to 'thrive in an increasingly digital society,' as the AI literacy executive order calls for. The Conversation will be hosting a free webinar on practical and safe use of AI with our tech editor and an AI expert on June 24 at 2pm ET/11am PT. Sign up to get your questions answered. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Daniel S. Schiff, Purdue University; Arne Bewersdorff, Technical University of Munich, and Marie Hornberger, Technical University of Munich Read more: Navigating deepfakes and synthetic media: This course helps students demystify artificial intelligence technologies The hidden risk of letting AI decide – losing the skills to choose for ourselves Verifying facts in the age of AI – librarians offer 5 strategies Funding from Google Research helped to support part of the authors' research on AI literacy. Funding from the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research under the funding code 16DHBKI051 helped to support part of the authors' research on AI literacy. Arne Bewersdorff does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
