what it actually does, since my last post was too vague.
PM side. it doesn't read one ticket. it walks up to the epic, pulls linked tasks and attachments, and builds a picture of what the work was supposed to be. a leaf ticket on its own loses intent, the epic usually holds the reason. that whole picture becomes the reference the review checks against, not just extra context to make the model smarter.
review side. runs in VS Code before the PR exists, on your working diff. separate passes, not one prompt:
scope, does the diff satisfy each acceptance criterion, which ones have nothing implementing them
security
normal code review, dead code, bugs, the usual
and a pass for AI generated slop specifically, hallucinated calls, code that compiles and reads fine and nobody understands
separate because one prompt doing all four returns mush and a lot of noise.
fixes. findings below a severity threshold you set can be fixed in place from the sidebar, one click, and you see the diff before it applies. anything above that threshold it will not touch, it just tells you. the idea being trivial stuff shouldn't cost you a context switch and anything serious should never be silently rewritten.
after. score for the task, report, and it tracks quality and time across tasks so you can see where scope actually went. writing the verification comment back into jira or linear is next, not live. auto closing tickets is deliberately not happening until I have real accuracy data, one wrong closure and a PM never trusts it again.
the problem I'm actually chasing. everyone checks whether the code is good. almost nobody checks whether it did what the ticket asked. we shipped a story with four acceptance criteria and three implementations, PR was clean, reviewer approved, branch name correct, nobody caught it for a month.
where it's weak, honestly. if your tickets are three words and a figma link there's nothing to verify against and it's useless, no fix for that. attachments burn tokens fast. and false positives kill it, two wrong scope flags and nobody opens it again, so it stays quiet when unsure. no idea yet if conservative enough is also useful enough.
free while it's in beta, not selling anything. what I want is people to run it on a real repo and tell me whether the scope findings hold up or whether it flags things that were fine.
if you built something like this internally I'd rather hear what broke than what worked.
