Feedback:<p>1. Description* reeks of AI slop; it extended a surface-level prompt into longer surface-level insights. *: description as in GitHub README<p>2. #1 creates a situation where I go through reading this long thing, and realize it has no answers to even the first-level questions that would be on anyones mind (what model? where is it run?). For this to become something I'll take the time to integrate into my core workflow and try, it has to be *much* more transparent.<p>3. Claims in the description are ~impossible.<p>3b. Up front, I feel your pain, there's a hard set of constraints to navigate here given A) marketing needs to be concise B) people play fast and loose with conciseness vs. accuracy C) you need to sounds as good as the people in B.<p>3c. That being said, we're crossing into year 3 of post-ChatGPT. People, especially in your target audience, will know <i>when they're reading* that you're reframing "I give text to the LLM which can theoratically do $X" into features, and users expect features to be </i>designed* and <i>intentional</i>. If they are, you should definitely highlight that to differentiate from people who just throw it into the LLM.<p>3d. Analyzes your entire repository context: impossible, literally, unless you're feeding it to Gemini only. I have about 20KLOC and its multiples of Llama context size.<p>3e. "Understands code relationships and dependencies" see 3c.<p>3f. "Contextual Analysis: Reviews code changes within the full repository context": see 3d.<p>3g. "Language Agnostic: Supports all major programming languages.": see 3c (is there actual work done to do this, or is this just "well, given I just send the text to the LLM, everything is supported"?)<p>4. nit: Should be "Show HN: LlamaPReview, AI Github PR Reviewer That Learns Your Codebase"