No pricing page, you've lost my interest. Doesn't matter that there is an obscured quote on the front page. Be up front about the costs.
Totally fair, we're working on it!
Show HN: Stage – Putting humans back in control of code review
71–80 of 119 posts
Re: Show HN: Stage – Putting humans back in control of code review
#72I’ve built this into a cli TUI. Passes the whole diff to Claude code with a schema and gets a structured narrative back out. Works really well for understanding.
Reconstituting messy things is exactly where LLMs can help.
Re: Show HN: Stage – Putting humans back in control of code review
#73Interesting app, I have a weird bug I'm seeing with the homepage, when I tab between the chapters, it lags a bit then doesn't actually proceed to the next chapter until I press again
Re: Show HN: Stage – Putting humans back in control of code review
#74Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but if I was going to have my team use this, I'd want someone to answer the following question If AI is good enough to explain what the change is and call out what to focus on in the review, then why isn't AI good enough to just do the review itself? I understand that the goal of this is to ensure there's still a human in the review cycle, but the problem I see is that suggestions…
One thing that comes to mind is that an AI might see the code and say "Yeah, this should compile / no obvious runtime errors", but the AI doesn't have the context to know your teams coding standards (every team has different standards). That said, there are ways to feed that context to the AI, but still risk hallucinations, etc.
Re: Show HN: Stage – Putting humans back in control of code review
#75Interesting app, I have a weird bug I'm seeing with the homepage, when I tab between the chapters, it lags a bit then doesn't actually proceed to the next chapter until I press again
Sorry to hear that! Looking into it
Re: Show HN: Stage – Putting humans back in control of code review
#76If I'm reviewing AI code, I don't want AI summaries. I want to be able to read the code and understand what it does. If I can't do that, the code the AI output isn't very good. In theory, your AI changes should be smaller chunks just like a real developer would do.
Re: Show HN: Stage – Putting humans back in control of code review
#77Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but if I was going to have my team use this, I'd want someone to answer the following question If AI is good enough to explain what the change is and call out what to focus on in the review, then why isn't AI good enough to just do the review itself? I understand that the goal of this is to ensure there's still a human in the review cycle, but the problem I see is that suggestions…
I mean, that's likely where it's going.
Most of human review I see of AI code is rubber stamping at this point, the volume is too big for human to keep up. What used to take Developers a few days to do is taking a few hours so PR volume is higher and human reviewing can't keep up. At this point, human review seems like CYA then anything else, "Why yes SOC2 auditor, we review all PRs."
I'm also seeing a lot more outages as well but management is bouncing around all happy about feature velocity they are shipping so :shrug:
Re: Show HN: Stage – Putting humans back in control of code review
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly. "Why was this change made"? "What were the options"? "Why this is a good way of doing it"? "What are the subtle things I came across while making this change"?
Yep that's something we're actively working on! would love to hear any perspectives on best ways to approach this
There isn't one. Most of time you would pair review a PR with human who wrote it and they could explain that. They can't anymore since 9/10, they didn't think through those things.
Re: Show HN: Stage – Putting humans back in control of code review
#79“Putting the cuisine back in food”
Looks inside.
Now that we are all eating Soylent it can get a little bland sometime. That’s why we are releasing our international, curated spice package for your Soylent...
Re: Show HN: Stage – Putting humans back in control of code review
#80> Stage automatically analyzes the diff, clusters related changes, and generates chapters. Isn't that what commits are for? I see no reason for adding this as an after-thought. If the committers (whether human or LLM) are well-behaved, this info is already available in the PR .
In our experience, it's difficult to create well-mannered commits as you code and new ideas pop into your head or you iterate on different designs (even for LLMs). One concept we toyed around with was telling an LLM to re-do a branch using "perfect commits" right before putting up a PR. But even then you might discover new edge cases and have to tack them on as additional commits. We thought git wasn't the right leve…
> We thought git wasn't the right level of abstraction and decided to tackle things at the PR level instead. Curious to hear your experiences!
The frick is a PR abstraction? Is this a GitHub PR abstraction where the commits are squashed and the PR description is whatever was hallucinated at 5 am? Yes, that’s certainly an abstraction, aka loss of information.
You either have the information stored in the version control database or you don’t. You can curate and digest information but once it’s lost it’s lost.
People layering stuff on top of Git or Subversion makes no sense. Your AI is not so dainty and weak that it cannot write a commit message. And if it can’t then you can recuperate the information that you trashed.