Stage CLI – a local, open-source code review tool for AI-generated changes.

You're solving a real problem, and despite beeing a bit broke ATM, I'd be willing to pay for a tool like this given the amount of time I spend on review.My current workflow: I use GitHub web to look at my commits and leave inline comments on the lines. Then I have Claude Code fetch all the comments and apply the changes or answer my questions.I don't always have multiple commitsn: sometimes it's just one big commit that I then ask the AI to split, and usually after a full review. I wouldn't say it's a common use case, but it's mine.To give you an idea of how much I try to optimize this part of my work, I installed Stylus (a Chrome extension) to change GitHub's syntax highlighting colors, so I'm glad you've integrated something similar natively.That said, with my big commits of several hundred or even thousands of lines, your Stage tool and the hosted version are unusable compared to GitHub web. I think improving performance should be a priority, probably through virtualization (windowing).Another issue: I never open PRs. As I mentioned, I comment directly on my commits on a branch. PRs make sense for a team workflow, but I work solo.

Do we need a paid Stage account to use this tool? US$30/mo is a big ask for home hobbyist use!

what's wrong with "git diff"?

This looks useful. With AI generated code the hardest part is reviewing it.A normal git diff gets messy once the agent changes several files for different reasons. Grouping the change into “chapters” seems like the right idea.Do you infer those chapters only from the diff, or can you also use the agent’s original plan/task history?

Minor nitpick: This isn't what I expected when I read "CLI". I envisioned a terminal-native experience. Unless I skimmed over this way too fast, this is a browser experience that you trigger from the terminal.EDIT: I should mention that I think the idea is cool. We're in a new age where reviewing large amounts of unfamiliar code has become a larger problem than it was previously.

Love the idea. This would have been a game-changer in previous projects I've worked on.

Looks cool! Chapters is definitely something I've been angling towards as well. Any plans on going in the other direction (directly incorporating rich feedback/review into the agent loop through Stage)?

love this. i had the same issue with ai generated code and wrote parley. https://parley.cloudflavor.io it's a TUI that can help you review code by enabling you to comment on the diff itself. but i like this approach of organizing code into chapters. i think what my tool is missing this exact thing.

> We’ve found that reading changes this way is a lot easier for us than reading them in an IDE or other similar CLI toolsIf this tool was in the terminal I'd use it.

Looks cool and will give it a try.I've been spending a lot of my energy lately on how to run eng teams where we:1. Maximize long-term shipping velocity2. Maximize quality (whatever that means)3. Maintain minimal complexity4. Are intentional about which skills we let atrophy, which we keep sharp, and which new ones we have to build5. Make juniors more capable, not just more productiveThese are always in tension.I've been thinking about instituting some sort of socratic method during planning and review plus spaced interval testing to ensure both the humans and AI coding agents understand and find some max of the factors above.