I built a local-first tool to review risky AI-generated code changes — looking for beta testers

I've been using AI coding tools more and more, and I kept running into the same problem: generating code is fast, but reviewing everything they changed carefully can become the bottleneck.

So I built PatchSift.

It compares the Before and After versions of a source file and runs deterministic checks to highlight changes that may deserve closer review.

Right now it includes 20 checks covering things like:

• authentication / authorization changes
• removed input validation
• SQL changes
• hardcoded secrets
• credential logging
• HTTP / TLS weakening
• configuration changes
• cryptography-related changes
• dynamic code execution

The important part is that it is intentionally simple:

• no account
• no repository access
• no installation
• no AI reviewer
• analysis runs locally in the browser
• source code isn't uploaded

You paste or load two versions of the same file, click Analyze, and get a Risk Score plus prioritized findings.

It's still a Public Beta, and what I need now isn't compliments — I'd like developers to try real-world Before/After changes and tell me where it fails.

Especially interested in:

• false positives
• risky changes it misses
• confusing findings
• whether the Risk Score feels useful
• whether you'd actually use something like this before accepting code from Cursor / Claude Code / Copilot / Codex

You can try it here:

https://patchsift.dev

If you test it, even a short “this was useful / useless because…” would genuinely help me decide where to take it next.