Code review is broken. Not the tooling - GitHub, GitLab, and the rest have excellent diff UIs. The problem is humans.
We've all been there: a 50-file PR lands in your queue. The author is someone you've never worked with. CI is green, but you don't know what the tests actually cover. You should review it properly. You won't.
AI-assisted development made this worse. Copilot, Cursor, Claude - they're all producing more code, faster, than any human can meaningfully inspect. The result? Approvals driven by fatigue. Rubber-stamped reviews. Bugs and security holes that slip through because nobody had time to look carefully.
Existing "AI code review" tools don't solve this. They summarize diffs. They leave style comments. Most are noise. They try to replace your judgment instead of informing it.
Axiomo takes a different approach. We don't review your code - we give you the context to review it yourself. Who is this contributor? What's their track record? What are they trying to do? What's the risk? What evidence exists? Where should you focus?
Every risk score has explicit drivers. Every recommendation has a rationale. Nothing is a black box. You still make the decision - you just make it with actual information instead of vibes and fatigue.
We're building this in public because we believe the best tools are shaped by their users. Follow along, give us feedback, and help us build something that actually works.