Stage’s PR chapters made HN ask whether AI can help humans review AI code

Community Spark

Show HN #47796818 reached 125 points and 106 comments with Stage, a code review tool that groups pull-request diffs into smaller logical chapters. The founders described a workflow where each chapter explains what changed and what a reviewer should double-check before moving on.

The Problem Stage Targets

The post argues that coding agents have made teams faster at producing changes while review queues and PR size keep growing. Stage positions itself as a reading layer for GitHub review: sign in with GitHub, read changes in an order chosen for comprehension, and keep comments or approvals connected to the normal workflow. The pitch is not “let a bot approve code,” but “help a human build a mental model before approving code.”

HN Was Skeptical in a Useful Way

The top comments focused on missing context. One reader said reviewing a PR is rarely just about the diff; it depends on the original request, scope and surrounding product intent. Another asked why an AI that can explain the change and point out focus areas should not simply do the review itself. Several users worried that summaries could become todo lists, causing reviewers to check only what the tool highlights.

The Bigger Review Question

The thread turned Stage into a broader discussion about review accountability. A chaptered diff can reduce cognitive load, but it cannot replace evidence that the author tested the change, understood the prompt history, and kept the PR small enough for review. The community’s strongest signal was that AI-assisted review tools need to expose more context, not less. The hard part is making review easier without making it passive. For engineering managers, that makes Stage interesting as a workflow experiment, but the quality bar remains whether it causes reviewers to ask better questions instead of reading less code.

Sources: Stage, Hacker News discussion.