Without something that semantically understands the code under review ( which all but requires general AI or at the least a strong static analyslzer) doing anything more than adding noise to the process or worse leading to certain groups of developers effectively being given a free pass.
It is not trained per language but it has 2 things up its sleeve: it considers the author's past experience in the context of the files being changed as well as if similar code changes (perceptual hashes) are associated with objections or fixes.
Both of those statements convince me even more that this is a bad idea. While the author's past experience is important, it has little bearing on the current PR. Same for similar code change. In code review, the skill/history of the developer is only really relevant when writing comments. You should look for the same potential mistakes and logic errors in a Senior or Junior developers PR. Adding the developers experience as an input could easily lead to the model deferring to experience. In my mind, that makes the signal this is providing potentially harmful, not helpful.
Without something that semantically understands the code under review ( which all but requires general AI or at the least a strong static analyslzer) doing anything more than adding noise to the process or worse leading to certain groups of developers effectively being given a free pass.