Describe the change you're about to deploy
Enter its blast radius if wrong, how easy it is to reverse, the data sensitivity it touches, whether it's user-facing, and your own confidence in the output.
HUMAN-REVIEW NECESSITY SCORE
Human Check
Enter an already-generated change's characteristics and get a human-review-necessity score before it ships.
- Uses your inputs in a transparent calculation
- Instant result with practical next steps
- No signup required
Planning guidance only. Validate important decisions with customer evidence and your delivery team.
YOUR INPUTS
Build your result
Complete every field. The result updates only when you choose Calculate.
How it works
We calculate a weighted necessity score
Blast radius and reversibility carry the most weight since they set the ceiling on how bad an undetected mistake could be, with sensitivity, user-facing status, and low confidence adding further weight.
Get a clear review recommendation
The score maps to one of three actions: safe to deploy with routine checks, spot-check first, or requires human engineering review — plus the specific factors driving that call.
Continue learning: AI-assisted MVP engineering: what should humans decide · When an AI-generated demo needs engineering review
Frequently asked questions
Does this scan my actual code change?
No. This tool computes a human-review-necessity score entirely from the characteristics you enter about the change — blast radius, reversibility, data sensitivity, user-facing status, and your own confidence in the output. It does not parse real code, diffs, or deployments, and does not connect to any coding agent or CI system.
How is this different from Vibe Coding Risk Score?
Vibe Coding Risk Score rates a task before you start it, to decide how much oversight the work needs while it's being done. Human Check evaluates a change that has already been generated, to decide whether it needs human review before it ships. Use one to plan the work and the other to gate the result.
Why does my own confidence in the output affect the score?
If you haven't actually reviewed the output yet, that's itself a risk signal — a change you're unsure about deserves more scrutiny than one you've already checked and trust, even if the other risk factors are identical.
Can a low score mean I should skip review entirely?
A low score means the factors that matter most for deployment safety look low-risk — it's a signal to prioritize your review time, not a guarantee the change is correct. High-sensitivity or wide-blast-radius changes should still get a look regardless of score.
What counts as "hard to reverse"?
Changes involving data migrations, external side effects (emails sent, payments charged, third-party API calls), or anything without a clean rollback path. These raise the score substantially because a mistake can't simply be undone.
How We Compare
| Feature | MVPHub | GitHub Copilot | Cursor |
|---|---|---|---|
| Weighted human-review-necessity score for a change | Included | Not included | Not included |
| Blast-radius and reversibility-aware scoring | Included | Not included | Not included |
| Automated diff or deployment scanning | Not included | Limited | Limited |
| AI code generation | Not included | Included | Included |
GitHub Copilot and Cursor can generate the change itself and offer inline suggestions, but neither computes a standalone review-necessity score from deployment-risk factors like blast radius and reversibility. Human Check gives a fast, structured read on whether a generated change needs a second pair of eyes 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.