Well it is fantastic because we actually used the tool Senix to build it self, "Using Senix to build Senix" meaning before the product was already done and ready to launch, we where using it to test and review its own code, which made the developmental process very fast
Adding a chat feature on GitHub to make it more flexible an powerful, in a way it can make changes directly in your GitHub
Senix gives me one clear verdict, which i think its way faster and cleaner. And if i don't trust it, i can still see the sub parts it reviewed
Everyone in the thread is talking about the catches, curious about the flip side: what's the false positive rate like on a large repo with a lot of PRs a day? A risk comment that's wrong too often just becomes the new stale CI check people learn to click through. Also, is the analysis scoped to the diff itself or does it pull in how the changed function is actually used elsewhere in the codebase? Some of the riskiest changes look completely safe in isolation and only turn dangerous once you know the callers.
@galdayan That's a great point, and honestly one of the biggest challenges with any code review tool.
We're actively tuning Senix to minimize false positives because, as you said, a noisy tool quickly becomes another notification developers ignore. Our goal is to provide high-signal feedback that developers can trust.
On the analysis side, Senix starts with the PR diff but also pulls in relevant context around the changed code to better understand potential impact. We agree that some of the most dangerous changes look harmless in isolation, so contextual awareness is a big area of focus for us as we continue improving the product.
Out of curiosity, how large is your team's codebase, and roughly how many PRs do you process each day?
@blesskimbi small team here, mid-size codebase, so we're only looking at maybe 5-10 PRs a day. but even at that volume a review tool earns trust or loses it fast, one bad verdict and people start ignoring the badge. appreciate the contextual-awareness focus, that's the part that actually differentiates from a plain diff linter.
@galdayan Thanks for sharing! You’re absolutely right trust is everything. One wrong signal too many and developers start ignoring the tool.
That’s why we’re focused on contextual analysis, not just simple diff checks. Appreciate the feedback!
@blesskimbi makes sense, contextual analysis over raw diffs is the harder problem to solve but it's the one that actually matters long term. good luck with the launch, will keep an eye on how the false-positive rate holds up as more teams try it
Finally something that doesn't just nag me about my PRs. Dropped it on a messy refactor PR and the risk call caught a regression I'd already half-missed locally.
@nazlcanzay5vlt Love hearing this! That's exactly why we built Senix. 😊
Out of curiosity, what kind of regression did it catch? And was this on a personal project or a production codebase?
@nazlcanzay5vlt Thanks for sharing! It's great to hear Senix kept pace with your workflow and caught something important.
Out of curiosity, would you trust an AI review enough to block a merge if it flagged a high-risk change?
Honestly the 30 second risk summary on PRs is kind of addictive, especially when it's catching stuff I totally missed in a Claude Code generated diff. Wish I had this a few sprints ago.
@serdarurim Haha, that's great to hear! Claude Code is awesome, but we've all learned the hard way that "it compiles" doesn't always mean "it's safe." 😄
What did Senix catch in the diff? And would you use it as a required check before merging?
The 30 second response is great but it would be really helpful if you could add a way to configure what counts as "high risk" per repo, since right now every team I work with seems to have different standards for what deserves a closer look.
@dilaranjjm Thanks for the suggestion! That's a really valuable idea.
You're absolutely right every team has different standards, and a one-size-fits-all definition of "high risk" doesn't work well in practice. Customizable risk thresholds are something we're actively thinking about as we evolve Senix.
Out of curiosity, what kinds of changes would you consider "high risk" in your team's workflow?
Hey Product Hunt! 👋
I’m Bless Kimbi, one of the builders behind Senix.
We built Senix because we noticed a shift in how developers work: AI is helping us write code faster, but reviewing and trusting that code is becoming the new challenge.
Our goal is simple help developers catch risks before they merge, without adding friction to their workflow.
Senix analyzes PR changes and gives teams a quick risk summary so they can ship with more confidence.
We’re excited to be here and would love your feedback.
W
hat’s the biggest challenge you face when reviewing code today?
Finally something that doesn't make me dig through a 40-file PR to figure out what's risky. The 30 second comment timing actually holds up too.
@serpildckx Thanks for trying Senix! Glad the quick summary is helping.
Large PRs are exactly where we felt developers needed more confidence without spending hours digging through changes. How big was the PR you tested it on?
Thank you fo the feedback sir