Stage

“Stage was the best product in this space”

“looks like an interesting start on that subject”

“I like the chapter concept.”

“your Stage tool and the hosted version are unusable compared to GitHub web”

“Oh damn, I'll be installing this after work for sure!”

“US$30/mo is a big ask for home hobbyist use!”

“Cool, simple demo that concisely shows the value.”

“make it very easy to separate the important stuff from the unimportant stuff”

“this is a browser experience that you trigger from the terminal”

“This would have been a game-changer in previous projects I've worked on.”

“If this tool was in the terminal I'd use it.”

“Looks cool and will give it a try.”

“I can see this growing to replace github”

“This is brilliant and really attacks the biggest bottleneck in my process.”

“we designed Stage with the intention of AI guiding the human, not replacing them”

“The "chapters" metaphor is exactly right”

“i enjoy the video and the project, kudos”

“Haven't tried it yet, but it looks neat!”

“Pretty neat, sick of trying to digest 100 Devin comments at once!”

“guiding the reviewer through reading code in the way that makes most sense”

“it lags a bit then doesn't actually proceed to the next chapter until I press again”

“No pricing page, you've lost my interest.”

“There are users who simply just use the diff and integrated GitHub view/comment/approval-sync experience for local reviews of PRs.”

“not every team that wants better UX for complex work uses agents”

“suggestions will quickly turn into todo lists”

“Your tool makes one thing (the code review) easier, while decreasing people's motivation to make well-mannered commits”

“Stage (op product) navigation tour is nice UX, about a day worth of work in addition to the incoming code tour.”

“using AI to guide human attention through the review process itself”

“Looks kind of neat like devon.ai review / reviewstack crossover. But as i tell every of the dozens projects trying to make a commercial review tool: i would rather spend a week vibe copying this than onboarding a tool i have to pay for”

“Y’all are a bit nuts if you want 50% more per month than Claude Pro for this.”

“CHAPTERS.md sounds like a good idea for when the auto-grouping doesn't match the actual structure of the work.”

“most human-centric so far”

“It doesn't seem to do much other than organize your commits within a PR”

“making the overall review experience as guided and obvious as possible for the human”

“The framing of "humans back in control" resonates.”

“if a tool can solve this instead of potentially adding more friction to other engineers I'm all for it”

“It's an interesting idea, but I feel like it's missing almost the most important thing; the context of the change itself.”

“This is a really cool idea but where's the moat?”

“Isn't that what commits are for? I see no reason for adding this as an after-thought.”

“I like the chapters thing, a lot of PRs I review should really be like 5 prs”