Review coding-agent PRs from your phone without rubber-stamping risky diffs
Use the selector beside this copy to score a Cursor, Claude Code, Codex, or other coding-agent change before approving it on mobile.
Use mobile for triage
Approve only low-risk, well-tested diffs from a phone. Escalate large or sensitive changes to desktop review.
Separate risk surfaces
Auth, billing, database, schema, infra, and security changes carry more review weight than copy or docs.
Ask for evidence
A summary is not enough. Require test output, screenshots, rollback notes, and changed-file explanations when risk rises.
How this checklist should be used
This is an unofficial review aid for mobile coding-agent workflows. It does not inspect your repository or verify tool output. Treat the result as a review path, not as merge permission.
Cursor publishes an iOS entry point for coding-agent workflows, which makes mobile review and handoff questions more concrete for readers.
Open sourceThe App Store listing confirms an iPhone distribution surface, but review safety still depends on the repository, PR, and team process.
Open sourceGetLLMs already tracks agent harnesses, code quality gaps, and AI coding tools. This tool turns that context into a practical review workflow.
Open sourceMobile Coding Agent Review FAQ
Answers to common questions about reviewing agent-generated code, mobile PR approval, and when to escalate to desktop review.
Can I safely review a coding-agent pull request from my phone?+
You can review low-risk coding-agent changes from a phone when the diff is small, tests passed, the agent explains what changed, and no sensitive surface is touched. Use desktop review when the change affects authentication, billing, data schemas, migrations, infrastructure, secrets, security boundaries, or production data. A phone is useful for triage and comments, but it should not replace deeper review for high-impact changes.
What should I check before merging an agent-generated PR?+
Check the changed files, test output, data or permission changes, rollback path, and whether the agent reused existing project patterns. For UI changes, inspect screenshots or run the page locally. For backend changes, inspect API boundaries, validation, error handling, and migrations. The safest merge decision is based on executable evidence, not only the agent summary.
Why is mobile review riskier for agent-generated code?+
Mobile review makes it easier to miss large diffs, generated abstractions, subtle schema changes, hidden configuration edits, and missing tests. Agent-generated code can look coherent while still violating local architecture or security rules. A mobile checklist helps separate changes that are safe to triage from changes that need a desktop diff, local run, or second reviewer.
Does this checklist verify Cursor, Claude Code, or Codex output automatically?+
No. This checklist is a local decision aid. It does not connect to Cursor, Claude Code, Codex, GitHub, or your repository. It helps you decide what evidence to request and what review path to use. You still need to inspect the real PR, run the relevant checks, and verify the source facts before merging.