I really want automated QA to work better! It's a great thing to work on.

Some feedback:

- I definitely don't want three long new messages on every PR. Max 1, ideally none? Codex does a great job just using emoji.

- The replay is cool. I don't make a website, so maybe I'm not the target market, but I'd like QA for our backend.

- Honestly, I'd rather just run a massive QA run every day, and then have any failures bisected, rather than per-PR.

- I am worried that there's not a lot of value beyond the intelligence of the foundation models here.

The market timing on this is perfect - it fills a major current gap I've seen emerging.

I've heard a few stories of QA departments being near-burnout due to the increased rate developers are shipping at these days. Even we're looking for any available QA resources we can pull in here.

No harm meant with the question - but what's the advantage over Claude Code + the GitHub integrations?

The interesting question to me is not whether the system can generate a plausible PR-time test, but whether the useful ones survive after the PR is gone. If Canary catches a real regression, how often can that check be promoted into a stable long-lived regression test without turning into a flaky, environment-coupled browser script? That conversion rate feels closer to the real moat than the generation demo.

Good work. But what makes this different than just another feature in Gemini Code assist or Github copilot?

Not a direct competitor but another YC company I use and enjoy for PR reviews is cubic.dev. I like your focus on automated tests.

what kinds of tests does it generate and how's this different from the tens of code review startups out there?

Looks interesting! Looks like perhaps no support for Flutter apps yet?

[flagged]

[dead]

- there are atleast 10 dozen code review startups at this point and i see a new one on YC every week

- what is your differentiator?