Crit
PR-style line-level review for AI agent output — point at the line, tell the agent to fix it.
Crit fills a real gap: it turns painful terminal diff review into a PR-style browser flow with line-level comments. It's free, local-first, and works with over a dozen agents. If you routinely review agent output, it's a must-try; skip it if you need cloud hosting or team management.
Verified 3d ago · liveness 72/100 · cite: rightaichoice.com/tools/crit
- Solo developers using AI coding agents (Claude Code, Cursor, Copilot) who want faster, more precise feedback loops
- Teams iterating on agent-generated code with local-first, file-based review
- Anyone tired of scrolling terminal diffs and missing details in agent output
- Reviewing agent-written plans and documents with structured, line-level comments
- Non-developers or pure no-code users looking for simplified tools
- Teams requiring built-in user management, roles, or permissions
- Distributed teams needing cloud-hosted review accessible without local setup
We scan live Reddit threads, YouTube comments, X posts, G2 reviews and other communities — and hand you an honest verdict in under a minute.
- Honest verdict, not marketing
- Real pros & cons from real users
- Attributed quotes with receipts
3 free scans · no card needed
Skip Crit if you need a cloud-hosted review platform with team management, or if you prefer staying entirely in the terminal without a browser UI.
Crit is free and self-hosted, so the only cost is your time to install it via Homebrew, Go, Nix, or a Windows binary. It's cheaper than cloud review tools, but you get no hosted collaboration features — you handle sharing and infrastructure yourself.
In short
Crit — PR-style line-level review for AI agent output — point at the line, tell the agent to fix it. Best for Solo developers using AI coding agents (Claude Code, Cursor, Copilot) who want faster, more precise feedback loops, Teams iterating on agent-generated code with local-first, file-based review, Anyone tired of scrolling terminal diffs and missing details in agent output. Free to use.
What's new in Crit
Checked yesterdayAcross the latest 2 updates: 1 feature update and 1 changelog entry.
Crit v0.19.1: performance fix for large reviews, live mode fixes, Jujutsu support improvements
300-file review load time cut from ~19s to 9ms. Live mode works behind redirects and proxies. Jujutsu bracketed paths diff correctly.
Crit v0.19.0: GitLab merge request integration, configurable code font
Review GitLab merge requests with same pull/push flow as GitHub. New setting for code font. Markdown rendering fixes for YAML frontmatter and tables.
What people actually say about Crit — is it worth it?
We ran a structured research pass across product reviews, community discussions, and post-purchase forum threads to surface the patterns vendors won't publish themselves. Below: the recurring strengths, the hidden costs people mention most, and the cohort that consistently regrets adopting this tool.
97 mentions across 5 sources (Hacker News, YouTube, Bluesky, Stack Overflow, Lemmy) · researched Jul 6, 2026.
- +Local-first, no data leaves your machine unless shared.
- +Inline comments on plans, code diffs, live apps, and static HTML.
- +Four review modes cover plans, branches, live apps, and HTML artifacts.
- +Active development with frequent updates and responsive maintainer.
- +Git diff and round-by-round diff views for iterative reviews.
- −Community feedback is extremely sparse beyond a few HN threads.
- −No evidence of enterprise reliability or large-scale use.
- −Browser-based workflow may not suit terminal/IDE purists.
- −Little to no discussion on Reddit, Product Hunt, or App Store.
- −Unclear how well integrations with agents beyond Claude Code work.
- • No hidden costs — entirely free and open-source
Viability Score
How well maintained and how widely used is Crit? Built from what the vendor actually publishes (docs, changelog, tutorials, integrations, pricing), whether the site is live, and how much real users discuss it. How we calculate this
Last calculated: September 2026
How we score →Key Features
- Line-level commenting on plans, diffs, live apps, and HTML
- Markdown rendering for plans and docs
- Branch and PR diff review with syntax highlighting
- Stacked PR support for Git, jj, sapling
- Live app proxy with DOM element commenting
- Automatic reload in live mode
- Static HTML iframe preview with asset sibling serving
- No dev server needed for static HTML
- One-click shareable reviews for async collaboration
- Vim keybindings for keyboard-driven workflow
- Chrome DevTools cookie sharing for live mode
- Session finish hooks for custom agent instructions
- File-based protocol for agent integration without API/plugins
- GitLab merge request integration
- Customizable keyboard shortcuts
About Crit
Crit turns terminal diff scrolling into a PR-style browser review for AI coding agents. Instead of squinting at walls of markdown or code in the terminal, you open the agent's output in a browser and comment directly on the specific line, section, or DOM element that's wrong. It's local-first and open-source, so your reviews stay on your machine unless you choose to share them. Setup is straightforward via Homebrew, Go, Nix, or a Windows binary, and Crit ships weekly releases.
Behind the Verdict
We've all been there — the agent writes a huge plan or refactors seven files, and you're stuck scrolling through terminal diffs, trying to remember what you wanted to change. Crit gives you a better surface: a browser, rendered views, and the ability to pin a comment to an exact line or DOM element. The agent then reads that structured feedback file and fixes it. It's simple, and it works. When should you pick Crit? If you're a developer who regularly reviews AI agent output — plans, docs, code diffs, live apps, static HTML — and you want something that fits into your existing workflow without a cloud subscription. It's especially strong for solo devs or small teams who value local-first privacy. The setup via Homebrew or Go is quick, and the agent integrations (Claude Code, Cursor, Copilot, and more) are just one command. When should you pass? Crit is not for you if you need team user management, roles, or cloud-hosted collaboration. It's self-hosted and local-first, so distributed teams who need browser access without local setup will be disappointed. Also, if you hate browser-based review and prefer terminal-only tools, Crit won't change your mind — it's browser-first by design. Compared to cloud review platforms like GitHub PRs or GitLab MRs, Crit adds no latency and keeps everything local. It's a lightweight alternative, but it doesn't replace a full code review platform for large teams — it's a focused tool for the agent review loop. Watch out for a few things: the collaboration features are still early, as one reviewer noted. Also, while there's GitLab MR integration (v0.19.0), Crit doesn't offer built-in user management or permissions, so it's not a drop-in for teams needing those controls. In practice, Crit shines when you're iterating with an agent on a
Researching Crit? Get your full AI stack in 60 seconds.
Free, no signup — tell us your goal and get tools matched to your budget & existing stack.
Real-world workflow fit
Concrete scenarios for the personas Crit actually fits — and what changes day-one when you adopt it.
After Claude Code generates a plan, you run 'crit' to open it in the browser, comment on the section that's wrong, and let the agent fix it.
Outcome: You save time by giving precise, line-level feedback instead of rewriting the entire plan in the terminal.
Your agent creates a PR with changes across 14 files; you open Crit, review the syntax-highlighted diff, and comment directly on problematic lines.
Outcome: The team can discuss issues with exact line references, and the agent can address them in the next round.
Your agent builds a frontend running on localhost; you use Crit's live mode to proxy it and click on misaligned elements to pin comments.
Outcome: You catch UI issues by pointing at the actual element, and the agent fixes it without you describing it in text.
Use Cases
- Review a 300-line AI-generated plan by commenting on specific sections in a rendered markdown view.
- Inspect an agent's code changes across 14 files with syntax-highlighted diffs and line-level comments.
- Provide feedback on a running localhost app by tapping on misaligned elements in a live proxy.
- Share an HTML artifact review with a colleague via a one-click public link.
- Iterate with your agent over multiple rounds, seeing exactly what changed each round.
- Automate agent instructions on review approval using custom finish hooks.
- Review GitLab merge requests directly from your local environment.
Limitations
- Crit is a local-first, self-hosted review tool delivered as a CLI with an optional web server (crit-web); it has no cloud version unless self-hosted.
- It supports multiple agent integrations (e.g., Claude Code, Cursor, GitHub Copilot) that depend on each tool's plugin or skill system.
- A Homebrew core installation is not available; users install via Homebrew tap, Go install, Nix, or pre-built GitHub binaries.
as of 2026-08-24
Verification history
We have re-verified Crit 7 times since . Each pass re-reads the vendor's own pages and re-checks every listed field against that evidence; passes where nothing had changed are marked as such.
- — re-verified summary, description, our verdict, our analysis, pricing model, pricing tiers, features, integrations, who it suits, who should skip it
- — re-verified summary, description, our verdict, our analysis, pricing model, pricing tiers, features, integrations, who it suits, who should skip it
- — re-verified summary, description, our verdict, our analysis, pricing model, pricing tiers, features, integrations, who it suits, who should skip it
- — re-verified summary, description, our verdict, our analysis, pricing model, pricing tiers, features, integrations, who it suits, who should skip it
- — re-verified summary, description, our verdict, our analysis, pricing model, pricing tiers, features, integrations, who it suits, who should skip it
- — re-verified summary, description, our verdict, our analysis, pricing model, pricing tiers, features, integrations, who it suits, who should skip it
Showing the 6 most recent of 7 verification passes.
Free to cite with attribution — this page re-verifies continuously.
12-month cost
Project the real annual outlay, including the implied monthly cost when only an annual tier is published.
Vendor list price only. Add-on usage, seat overages, and contract minimums are surfaced under Hidden costs & gotchas.
Plans compared
For each published Crit tier: who it actually fits, and what it adds vs. the previous tier. Cross-reference the cost calculator above for projected annual outlay.
Self-hosted (CLI)
$0/mo
Ideal for
Developers who want a free, local-first review tool for AI agent output without cloud dependency.
What this tier adds
Free entry point: all four review modes and 12+ agent integrations included, no subscription.
Where the pricing makes sense
The company stage and team size where Crit's pricing actually pencils out — and where peers do it cheaper.
Crit is free and self-hosted, so the only cost is your time to install it via Homebrew, Go, Nix, or a Windows binary. It's cheaper than cloud review tools, but you get no hosted collaboration features — you handle sharing and infrastructure yourself.
Setup time & first value
How long it actually takes to get something useful out of Crit — broken out by persona, not the marketing-page minute.
For most developers, getting Crit running takes under 5 minutes: install via Homebrew ('brew install crit'), Go, Nix, or download a Windows binary, then run 'crit' in your project. Configuring agent integrations (e.g., 'crit install cursor') adds a few minutes per agent.
Switching to or from Crit
How to bring data in from common predecessors and how to get it back out — written for the switcher, not the buyer.
- →From terminal diff review: replace manual scrolling with Crit's browser view — just run 'crit' in your repo.
- →From cloud review tools: self-host Crit locally and use its file-based protocol for agent feedback.
Integrations
Resources & Guides
Tutorials & Learning
Official links
Tools that pair well with Crit
Common stack mates teams adopt alongside Crit, with the specific reason each pairing earns its keep.
Featured Head-to-Head Comparisons
Crit vs Cognition Ai
For enterprise teams needing an autonomous engineer that handles multi-step coding, testing, and deployment with a productivity guarantee, Cognition AI (Devin) is the clear choice. Solo developers and small teams who want a lean, local-first review loop to iterate faster with their existing agent should adopt Crit—it's free, integrates with dozens of coding agents, and respects your data privacy.
Crit vs Gem
Gem and Crit serve completely different domains — recruiting vs. code review — making a direct comparison moot. Choose Gem if you need an all-in-one AI recruiting platform with ATS, CRM, and AI agents for sourcing, screening, and scheduling. Choose Crit if you're a developer using AI coding agents and need a local-first review tool to inspect diffs, running apps, or plans. Neither is a substitute for the other.
Crit vs Poke Interaction Co
If you want an AI assistant that lives in your messaging apps to manage emails, calendar, and health data, Poke is the clear choice — especially with its new Apple Messages integration. If you need a dedicated review interface for AI-generated code (plans, diffs, live apps) and want to iterate faster with your coding agent, Crit is purpose-built and free. They solve completely different problems; pick based on whether you need task automation or code review.
Crit vs Replit Agent
Choose Replit Agent if your goal is to build and ship full-stack apps from scratch using natural language, with minimal setup for hosting and collaboration. Pick Crit if you already work with AI coding agents (like Claude Code or Cursor) and want a dedicated, local-first review interface to catch line-level issues in diffs, live apps, or plans. They serve different phases: Agent for creation, Crit for inspection.
Alternatives to Crit
View allFrequently Asked Questions
Categories
Used Crit? Help shape our editorial sentiment research.