Case study
An AI reviewer found two bugs. A developer merged anyway.
Two useful review comments went unanswered among 83 conversation items. See how clearer summaries and follow-up can help a developer act on what matters.
What you get
Know what was checked before you merge.
Assess the work without reconstructing an agent’s conversation.
Is this the right change?
Intent says why the change exists, what it covers and leaves out, and why it is safe. Review effort, from 1 to 5, says how carefully to read the code. When a few lines need a closer look, walkthrough notes can point them out.
What was proved, and what wasn’t?
Verification lists the checks run against this change and any claim left unproven. Each check links to its result or names the command that ran. A UI change adds annotated before-and-after screenshots, plus a video when timing matters.
What needs my decision?
Review findings, missing checks, and delivery decisions stay visible. Longer results, available usage and cost, and notes for resuming work are expandable.
Inside a Shaka PR
See the workflow in real pull requests.
Follow the numbered callouts to see verification, independent review, and code walkthroughs in recent Shaka PRs. Open each source to read the full context.
shakacode/shaka · PR #667
Start with the recommendation.
- A recommendation with its evidence
The recommendation links to the walkthrough, review, and checkpoint. The attribution note distinguishes configured and served models.
- Know the scope and safety assumption
Intent explains why the change matters, what it covers, and how carefully to review it.
- See what was proved and what was not
Verification names the checks and results. Not verified keeps the remaining gap visible.
shakacode/shaka · PR #667
Local adversarial review
- Read the coverage limits
The review names the revision and explains what each reviewer could inspect. Tests were outside their review coverage.
- Track findings and their dispositions
The table records fixes, dismissed findings, and optional notes across three commits. No open findings remain.
- Keep the full reports available
Expand findings, assessments, execution metadata, or the reports for each reviewed commit.
shakacode/shaka · PR #667
Understand the change and its limits.
- An explanation linked to code
Links connect the explanation to the code that captures, binds, and compares the container environment.
- See how the pieces connect
A small flow diagram connects Docker inspection, the saved fingerprint, and the comparison decision.
- Evidence and rollback are concrete
The report names focused tests and qualification limits. Reverting removes the reader and guard while preserving private evidence.
Cropped GitHub screenshots from PR #667 captured October 17, 2026 (Hawaii time), for revision da20327. Callouts explain the recorded results; they are historical examples, not a claim about any PR’s current readiness.
Evidence from real use
Finding a bug is only the first step.
Get started
Install. Give it a task.
Ask your coding agent for help whenever you need it. You merge, or let the agent merge within limits you set.
You need Ruby 3.4 or later, Git, an authenticated GitHub CLI, and a coding agent that can load skills and run commands.
Rolling this out to a team? Talk with ShakaCode →