Describe the change
Enter how many files changed and tick whether the change touches authentication, payments, the database schema, or critical/core business logic — plus whether it has tests and a human review.
CURSOR / GITHUB COPILOT / REPLIT / LOVABLE COMPARISONS
Diff Risk AI
Describe an AI-generated code change — files touched, whether it reaches auth, payments, the database, or core logic — and get a transparent, weighted risk score with the reasoning behind every point.
- Updates live — no submit button
- Transparent weighted scoring, no external calls
- All input stays in your browser
Results update automatically as you change the inputs.
Risk score 0/100
Risk factors
Mitigations applied
Recommended next steps
How it works
Weighted scoring runs automatically
Each risk factor adds points based on its typical blast radius (payments and auth weigh heaviest), file count adds a smaller amount, and existing tests or a human review subtract a portion of the raw score as mitigations.
Get a risk tier and next steps
The 0-100 score maps to a low/medium/high/critical tier, with the full point-by-point reasoning shown and concrete next steps for the highest-risk factors present.
Continue learning: How AI-generated code creates dependency risks · Can automated scanners secure AI-generated code?
Frequently asked questions
How is the risk score calculated?
Each factor you flag (auth, payments, database, critical logic, files changed) adds a fixed number of points reflecting its typical impact if something goes wrong. Existing tests and human review then subtract a percentage of that raw total as mitigations, capped between 0 and 100.
Why do payments and auth weigh more than other factors?
Bugs in authentication or payment logic tend to have the widest and most costly blast radius — broken access control or a failed transaction affects every user of that flow, not just the one who triggered the bug.
Does this actually analyze my code or diff?
No — this is a structured, self-reported scoring tool. You tell it what the change touches and it applies transparent, fixed weightings. It does not parse a real diff or connect to your repository.
Can tests and review bring the score to zero?
No. Mitigations reduce the score but never fully cancel out a genuine risk factor — a payments change with tests and review still carries some risk, just less than the same change unverified.
What should I do with a "critical" tier result?
Treat it as a signal to slow down: get a human review if you have not, add test coverage for the specific behavior changed, and manually walk through the affected flow before merging — not just trust the diff.
How We Compare
| Feature | MVPHub | GitHub Copilot | Cursor |
|---|---|---|---|
| Weighted risk score with visible reasoning | Included | Not included | Not included |
| Flags auth/payments/database/critical-logic changes | Included | Limited | Limited |
| Instant and free, no external API calls | Included | Not included | Not included |
| Actual diff parsing against your repository | Not included | Included | Included |
Cursor and Copilot generate and explain code changes, but neither produces a standalone risk score for merge decisions. MVPHub gives a fast, transparent second opinion on how risky a change is before it ships.
Related tools
Embed this tool
Add this tool to your site with the canonical iframe below. It remains hosted and maintained by MVPHub.