AOSplaneCompareRovo Dev
Rovo Dev vs AOSplane
A Jira work item becoming a pull request is not unique to AOSplane. Rovo Dev works from Jira work items, and GitHub documents Copilot’s cloud agent from Jira as well. AOSplane’s claim is narrower: a Claude Code or Codex pull request is scoped, reviewed, and QA-tested before your team sees it, and it arrives with the spec, the review notes, QA’s results, and that task’s cost. The Rovo facts below are from Atlassian’s support docs and its Rovo Dev in Jira post, as read on 11 November 2026.
- Hard spend cap per task
- Linear and Jira
- Claude Code and Codex
6 sections · 4 min read
On this page6 sections
Two Rovo Dev paths from a work item
In the IDE, Atlassian’s doc has you open the Jira work item, choose Generate code, and let Rovo Dev work with that work item as context. You review the file changes, keep or undo them, and commit through your normal Git workflow. Creating the pull request, on that page, is your Git step.
Atlassian’s Rovo Dev in Jira post describes the cloud path: sessions started from a work item, a plan you can review and refine, then code, tests, and a pull request from a sandbox. An Atlassian community answer on the same product says that when Rovo Dev is configured to commit and open a draft pull request, it does not merge that draft. The team still reviews it. This page does not treat the blog’s “merge-ready” wording as a claim that no person reviews.
Code Reviewer, which Atlassian says was Rovo Dev code review, comments on pull requests in Bitbucket Cloud or GitHub. If the pull request is linked to a Jira work item, the enable-code-reviews doc says it can check the change against that work item’s requirements. That is a real review. It runs on the pull request your team is already looking at, or on the schedule you set. It is not the same sequence as a spec, a review, and a command-level QA pass that finish before the team is asked.
Whose credits
Rovo Dev credits and Rovo credits are different pools, and Atlassian is moving Code Reviewer from the first to the second. The usage doc, read the same day, says:
- Rovo Dev Free: 350 Rovo Dev credits per user per month per Jira site. At the limit, Rovo Dev stops until the allowance resets.
- Rovo Dev Standard: 2,000 Rovo Dev credits a month at the Atlassian organization, usable on any site in that organization that has Standard. Extra usage, if enabled, continues and is billed.
- The same page’s averages, which are Atlassian’s, not ours: about 2 to 8 code reviews or 1 to 10 CLI tasks on the free allowance, and about 20 to 75 reviews or 5 to 50 CLI tasks on Standard. More complex tasks use more credits.
- Code Reviewer, from early November 2026, uses the organization’s shared Rovo credit allowance, the same pool as Rovo Chat and other Rovo features. Atlassian says that billing does not start until 3 December 2026.
A shared allowance is a real budget. One heavy session can spend credits the next work item needed. AOSplane’s cap is the other shape. Organization, project, and agent limits are checked together before the task starts. The tightest one is the cap. Over it, that task does not start. The cost of the task that did run is part of the record with the pull request, not a reconstruction from a pool.
Copilot, and Claude Agent for Jira
GitHub’s integrations page lists Jira as a place Copilot’s cloud agent can be triggered. That is a third ticket-to-pull-request path, on Copilot’s AI credits. Separately, Atlassian documents Claude Agent for Jira, a beta that uses your Claude Managed Agents API key and a GitHub token and opens a draft pull request. That beta is not Rovo Dev, and this page does not fold it into Rovo’s credit tables.
Side by side
| Rovo Dev, from Atlassian’s docs | AOSplane | |
|---|---|---|
| Start | A Jira work item, in the IDE or in a cloud session. | A Jira work item or a Linear issue. The Jira path uses the same gate as Linear. |
| Review | You review IDE edits. Code Reviewer can comment on a pull request, including against a linked work item. | Review and QA finish before the team sees the pull request. The notes and the QA results come with it. |
| Harness | Rovo Dev. | Claude Code or Codex. Same gate either way. |
| Spend | Per-user or organization credit allowances. Standard can bill extra usage. Code Reviewer moves to a shared Rovo pool. | A hard cap on the task, checked before it starts. |
When Rovo Dev is the better fit
- The team wants the agent inside Jira and the IDE, on Atlassian’s credit allowance.
- Code Reviewer on Bitbucket or GitHub, drawing on the shared Rovo pool, is the review you want on pull requests people already opened.
- You want the work item, the plan, and the session in Atlassian’s cloud product.
When AOSplane is the better fit
- The first reviewer should not be someone on the team. The pull request should already carry a spec, review notes, QA results, and a cost.
- The agent should be Claude Code or Codex, from Jira or from Linear, with no second loop to remember.
- A task should stop at its own cap. The cap, next to Claude Code’s own limits.
- An agency running several clients wants that cap per project. One project per client.
Pricing starts with a self-serve Free plan.
Credit allowances and the Code Reviewer move are from Rovo Dev credit usage and How Code Reviewer uses Rovo credits. The IDE steps are from Use Rovo Dev in the IDE. The cloud session description is from Rovo Dev in Jira. Copilot’s Jira entry is from GitHub’s integrations list. All were read on 11 November 2026 and may have changed. Rovo Dev is not an AOSplane product.