This is fundamentally a scaling problem, not a tooling problem. When AI generates PRs that no single person can fully grasp, the question isn't "how do we make reviewing 5,000 lines more comfortable" – it's "who is actually vouching for this code?"
The answer is already deeply embedded in Git's tooling: every commit carries both an author and a committer field. The author wrote the code, the committer is the person who put it into the codebase. With git blame you always know who is to blame – in both senses. In the age of AI-generated code, this distinction matters more than ever: the author might be an LLM, but the committer is the human who vouches for it.
Disclosure: non-native English speaker, used AI to help articulate these thoughts – the ideas are my own.
I mean, i love those kind of cli tools but in my current mood, instead looking for it on github, I'd probably ask an frontier model:
“Create a cross-platform CLI tool that scans multiple Git projects (grouped by category) and reports their status (clean, modified, ahead, error) based on a YAML config.”
Allways surprised how far this gets me. Most of my dotfiles now got created this way.