cpan22

I switched over to Superset from Conductor a few months ago and haven't looked back - it's really nice to be able to use the native Codex/Claude Code TUIs without any of the bloat

Can't wait to see what else you guys cook up!

+1, git diffs show you the changes in repository list order but sometimes it makes more sense to read certain things first - our tool does just that

Nope! this is completely free :)

yes! we've found that reading changes this way make it very easy to separate the important stuff from the unimportant stuff, and we're thinking of ways to make that more visible in the UI

yep sorry about that, we weren't exactly sure what the best framing was

glad you like the idea though! let us know what you think

we're planning on adding it!

Great let us know what you think!

And yeah, I think number 5 on your list is particularly interesting - juniors will develop much slower if they don't go through the struggle of understanding implementation

We're hoping that our tool can help make that easier

Well I think the bigger issue here is that GitHub is too decoupled from an issue tracking system - its a lot of manual overhead to constantly have to keep in sync. Linear does an ok job but far from ideal

Yeah we've been thinking a lot about this! Switching back and forth between local and GitHub is also a frustration of ours so we want to think of ways to unify the experience

Good question, we're more focused on the first aspect you mentioned of "does the code you wrote make sense on a high level" rather than "did you miss something" - I think tools like Greptile and Codex are coming out with new security review features that are more suited towards that use case

Great point and that's our takeaway too from talking to many users. We're exploring ways for Stage to possibly tailor the review flow to each specific PR/user preferences. Would love to hear any ideas if you have any!

Yep that seems to be a common sentiment! Definitely some interesting areas around capturing agent conversations in commit history that could make this possible

Good point, we've heard from users that there's a lot of fatigue of switching between local and GitHub all the time so we're thinking of ways to unify that experience

Agreed! That's why we designed Stage with the intention of AI guiding the human, not replacing them

Thanks for sharing this, I do agree with a lot of what you said especially around trust around what its actually telling you

For me, I only run into problems of an agent misleading/lying to me when working on a large feature, where the agent has strong incentive to lie and pretend like the work is done. However, there doesn't seem to be this same incentive for a completely separate agent that is just generating a narrative of a pull request. Would love to hear what you think

I agree with that - with Stage we're not trying to replace reading code with AI summaries, but rather guiding the reviewer through reading code in the way that makes most sense and coming away with the best understanding

Sorry to hear that! Looking into it

Totally fair, we're working on it!

Totally get that, still something we're actively talking about!

Sort of related to that, we've been thinking a lot about the future of code review for OSS. Its clear with Cal.com going closed source that something needs to change. Would love to hear any thoughts you have

Yep! Or Linear, etc Or could be something like git-ai which captures agent context in git commits

Yep, for me personally, code review was the most effective way for me to get up to speed when joining a new engineering team

Yeah this is a really interesting perspective!

We've wondered about what the review experience should look like for newly technical or non-technical people now that they are increasingly putting up PRs themselves. These people will be less opinionated about certain technical decisions in general so maybe the future looks like review processes very personalized to your experience level and your background. Definitely a lot to think about

Right now the chapters UI is only available on our website but we're exploring possible integrations and/or a desktop app

No worries at all, that's a very fair point and a question we've gotten a lot!

I think our perspective is that: software design has always had a subjective element to it. There's never been a "right" way to design a system, there are always trade offs that have to be made that depend on things like business context etc.

To that extent, most engineers probably still want to be part of that decision making process and not just let agents make all the high level decisions, especially if they're responsible for the code that ultimately gets merged

I agree, and that's why we're not building a code review bot which aims to take humans out of the loop

We don't think of Stage as moving people further away from code review, but rather using AI to guide human attention through the review process itself

Thanks for the feedback! re: local vs cloud, I do think there is a cool work to be done around unifying the writing/reviewing experience locally, but we started with cloud because we designed this as a collaborative product with teams in mind

Yep that's something we're actively working on! would love to hear any perspectives on best ways to approach this

Nice! Will try it out

Thank you! Let us know any ways we can make it better

Open source is something we're thinking about! We've just been focused on building for now but its definitely not off the table

Thanks! Yeah we believe strongly that humans need to be in the code review loop to some extent

I think one thing we've seen from early users that surprised us is how chapters was quickly becoming the unit of review for them as opposed to files - and they've asked us to add functionality to mark chapters as viewed and comment on them as a whole

Another big surprise: now that agents are the ones writing most (if not all) the code right now, we've found that a lot of early users are using Stage to not only review others PRs but also their own PRs, before they have others review it