I've been using AI coding tools more heavily lately — Copilot, Cursor, sometimes Claude directly. The velocity is real. Features that used to take days are done in hours.
But there's something that's been bothering me: I'm generating code faster than I can review it. If AI writes your code, you end up shipping PRs faster than your review capacity. The manual review bottleneck becomes obvious — you're either rubber-stamping everything or slowing down to actually look at it.
I think there's a product in this.
The idea is a lightweight layer that sits in your GitHub PR workflow and auto risk-scores AI-generated changes. It flags which hunks need human attention (security-sensitive paths, complex logic, untested branches) and which are safe to auto-approve. The target user is clear: individual developers and small teams using AI code generation who are bottlenecked on review.
The advantage is specificity. Not "saves time" — it tells you exactly which diffs need eyes and which don't.
Go-to-market would start in the communities already experiencing this friction — Cursor Discord, GitHub Copilot forums, AI coding subreddits. Free tier with 50 PR analyses/month, then $15-29 per seat for unlimited.
I'm still deciding if the technical challenge of reliable triage is worth the effort. What do you think — is this a real pain point, or am I overthinking it?
Top comments (1)
The bottleneck you're naming is real — I live on the extreme end of it. I'm not a developer at all; I ship internal tools by describing what I want and reviewing what comes back. So for someone like me, the triage question isn't "is this code elegant," it's narrower and scarier: "what did this change that used to work?" If your risk score weighted blast radius — touched-but-unrelated files, modified working code versus added new code — that alone would be worth paying for.
One caution from the trenches, though: the failure mode isn't a tool that misses risky code, it's a tool that confidently blesses it. A green checkmark I trust too much is more dangerous than no checkmark. If the product frames itself as "here's where to spend your ten minutes of attention" instead of "this is safe," I think it survives contact with reality. Would happily be a test user from the non-developer end of the market — we might be a bigger segment than you think.