Skip to content

Govern
every
change.

Critique is the AI Change Control Platform at the merge boundary. Every pull request becomes a Change Passport with provenance, risk, evidence-backed blocking, merge policy, and verified repair.

Change Passport per PREvidence-backed verdictsMerge policy as codeVerified repair with proof
ReviewRemedyChat

Review status

Merge blocked.

Scout · 4 specialists · lead verdict

This PR weakens tenant scoping, risks double-applying billing reconciliation, and slows the context builder in the hot path. Merge is not recommended until those findings are resolved.

github-nativespecialist handoffcheck run output
change passport·agent firewall·risk score·evidence contract·merge policy as code·lead verdict·verified repair·findings memory·incident learnings·github-native checks·change passport·agent firewall·risk score·evidence contract·merge policy as code·lead verdict·verified repair·findings memory·incident learnings·github-native checks·change passport·agent firewall·risk score·evidence contract·merge policy as code·lead verdict·verified repair·findings memory·incident learnings·github-native checks·

The product is change control. Review is one layer.

The merge boundary is the product. Critique records provenance and risk, demands evidence for a block, enforces merge policy, verifies repairs, and feeds incident learnings back into the rules. Review, chat, and Builder are layers inside that loop.

Every PR opens a Change Passport.

How should this work?
Keep chat light. Make Builder show receipts.
Switch to Builder

One PR-level record holds provenance, risk, gate events, evidence runs, the merge decision, repair proof, and memory. Evidence runs are the commit-level drill-down beneath it.

A block has to cite evidence.

components/home/page.tsx

+ product panel stack

+ unique abstract surfaces

- generic review slop

The evidence contract links every blocking decision to the finding behind it. A verdict is a claim you can audit and replay, not an opinion in a thread.

Merge policy is code.

tests84%

Dashboard or repo-file policy runs in dry-run, warn, or enforce. Operator overrides record who allowed the merge and why, then patch the GitHub check.

Repairs ship with proof.

Chat

free

Builder

38

Remedy stores a proof bundle: patch hash, validation, and a verification linkage. A fix is done because the proof says so.

Incidents teach the gate what to catch next time.

feat/home-redesign
diff ready
ship branch

Findings memory and incident learnings from Sentry, Linear, Jira, and Vercel feed back into the rules. The boundary gets smarter with every postmortem.

Scout the diff.
Split the risk.
Publish the verdict.

The review loop is the product loop: frame the change, verify risk with specialists, then post one grounded output back to GitHub.

Scout frames the review problem.

It reads the diff, nearby files, and test surface first so the review starts with context instead of generic commentary.

Workspace statediff first
Search repo history
Explain affected files
Keep thread free

Specialists verify the risk.

Security, billing, architecture, and performance lanes open only when the pull request actually warrants them.

Workspace stateparallel lanes
Builder lane selected
Repository context retained
Credits preview visible

GitHub gets one readable verdict.

The lead reviewer writes the final output as a technical review artifact your team can merge or block against.

Workspace statepublish verdict
Changed files listed
Diff summary attached
Validation status readable

Govern your changes, not just review them.

Connect GitHub and the Passports queue fills in. Run merge policy in dry-run first, then enforce when you are ready. No check renames, no forced gating, no rewrite of your existing automation.

Change Passport per PRProvenance plus risk scoreMerge policy as codeVerified repair with proofFindings and incident memoryGitHub-native check runs

Keep exploring

Full sitemap ↗

Everything you need to evaluate AI review and change control.

Critique v4

AI change control at the merge boundary.

Control Board, Change Passports, gate → review → merge phases, and why comment-only review bots are not enough for agent-authored PRs.

Open

PR control

PR control for teams buried in pull requests.

Gate slop before review spend, operate from one Control Board, and keep an auditable Change Passport per PR.

Open

Git control

Git control without replacing Git.

Govern what merges on GitHub — agent PRs, policy, and proof — for platform and release engineering.

Open

All guides

Guides hub for operators.

PR control, git control, manage pull requests at scale, change control, and AI review — one index.

Open

About

Not just a code review CI tool.

The real control board for pull requests: policy, memory, delivery, and proof on one passport per PR.

Open

Definitive guide

AI code review, without the hype.

What AI code review is, how multi-agent review actually works, how to evaluate tools on your own PRs, and a 6-step rollout playbook.

Open

Tool comparison

Best AI code review tools in 2026.

Nine tools ranked, a full feature matrix, honest callouts of where each competitor wins, and direct vs-Critique deep dives.

Open

Pricing + credits

Transparent per-PR pricing.

Solo $19/mo, Pro $49/mo, Team $149/mo — shared across the team. Student and OSS maintainers start at $5/mo student/OSS with unlimited indexing.

Open

Free calculator

What does PR review cost?

Estimate monthly reviewer hours, engineering cost, and the leverage of putting an AI review layer on one busy GitHub repo first.

Open