From ManusAI, v0, and Lovable to code you can merge

If you use ManusAI, v0.app, or Lovable, you are optimizing for one of the best feelings in software: an idea becomes a screen before the coffee cools. That is a genuine superpower. It is also only the opening move. The product you run in production is the one that survives review, tests, security boundaries, and the slow accumulation of changes nobody holds in their head at once.

critique.sh exists in that second half of the loop. We are a GitHub-native AI review control plane: not another generator, but a system that helps you decide whether generated or hand-written code should ship, with evidence attached to the decision.

Why the handoff matters

Builders compress time to first render. They are not trying to replace your entire engineering culture, and they should not have to. Once you export to a repo, the questions change. Does this route enforce auth the same way as the rest of the app? Did a dependency slip in that your license policy disallows? Is the data access pattern N+1 under load? Did the agent duplicate a helper that already exists three folders away?

Continuous integration answers a narrower question: does this revision build and do the checks you remembered to automate pass? critique.sh targets the harder one: given everything we can see in the repository, should this change merge with confidence? That is the gap that widens when AI writes more lines per week.

What critique.sh adds after the prototype

Our default posture matches how disciplined teams review: read the diff, pull related files and tests when they matter, and split concern into lanes instead of asking one model to pretend it is an entire staff engineer.

In the product, that shows up as parallel specialists that activate when the change warrants it: security and permission boundaries, tests and regression risk, architecture and layering, performance patterns that only hurt once you have real traffic. Everything compounds into a shared evidence layer so the final synthesis is grounded in the same facts, not a single opaque pass over the patch.

When a finding is clear enough to fix and safe enough to automate, Remedy can run in an isolated environment, apply a bounded patch, run verification, and push back to the branch when your GitHub App permissions allow it. When automation is not appropriate, you still leave the PR with structured critique instead of vibes.

If you want to keep executing in your own stack, Bring Your Own Agent is part of the same story: Critique can produce a structured fix blueprint you hand to Codex, Claude Code, Copilot, or any workflow you already pay for.

Critique Builder and Critique Chat

If you already live in browser-first workflows, Critique Builder is the cloud execution room in the same product: repo-backed runs in managed sandboxes with a thread you can read without pretending the browser is an IDE. It is aimed at updating real software, not replacing your builder of choice for the initial spark.

Critique Chat is the lighter on-ramp: multi-model, repo-aware conversation when you want to think through the codebase before or between PRs, including a path to try the product without installing a GitHub App first.

Who this is for

Solo builders who exported a Lovable project and suddenly own every line. Small teams who went from zero to a Next.js repo in a weekend and now need merge discipline without hiring a platform committee first. Agencies handing a client repo over after a prototype sprint. Anyone who felt the speed of generation and then the quiet anxiety of the first real pull request.