Why Reikon
Take the helm of your codebase. Your coding agents can already write code faster than you can decide what’s worth doing — and judge whether what comes back actually did it. That judgment, not the typing, is the bottleneck now. Reikon is the seat you make it from: where you decide what to steer toward, and judge every change your agents hand back. It’s local-first and a product, not a platform: download it, open a folder, get a health score in seconds. No account, no seats, no sales call. Nothing leaves your machine unless you export a report or point it at an AI tool you already run.The wheel
A decision has a lifecycle, and Reikon’s spine is that lifecycle, as a wheel:- Goals — set intent. Tell Reikon what you’re steering toward (“fewer
useEffects”, “no file over 500 lines”, “keep coverage above 80%”) in plain language. It tracks each goal deterministically, forever after. - Review — judge the act. Your agent flags risky hunks and comments on lines over MCP; you reply, resolve, and dispatch fixes back. The diff returns for you to accept or send back.
- Verify — judge the result. Is it actually true now? Reikon reads your coverage report and surfaces the riskiest files with no tests — a “test these first” list you can hand straight to an agent.
- Architecture — judge the form. Is the structure worth keeping? Layer-violation findings — the leg that closes the loop back into new Goals.
The loop — and dispatch
Reikon ships an MCP server with write tools, not just read ones — that’s the difference. Your agent (Claude Code, Cursor, Codex, anything that speaks MCP) flags a hunk, comments on your notes, and — when you ask — fixes what you dispatched:- You leave a note, or your agent flags one. You hit Copy prompt — that one act marks the note fix-requested and gives you a kickoff prompt. Paste it into your agent, or tell an MCP-connected agent to “work Reikon’s dispatch queue” and it pulls the queue itself (see the
reikon-queueskill). - The agent fixes it in its own environment and leaves the change in your working tree.
- The diff returns to Review, linked to the flag. You accept it, or send it back with a reason that rides along on the re-dispatch.
rei CLI, and your agent — in sync, on your machine. See the MCP guides to wire it up.
Why this gets stronger as agents improve
Most tools in this space bet on the agent being the product. Reikon bets on the judgment directing it. The better your agents get at writing code, the more the bottleneck becomes deciding what’s worth doing and checking what they hand back — which is exactly the seat Reikon builds. Insight originates the work, a human reviews every returning diff, nothing leaves your machine, and Reikon never executes. No hosted PR-bot can hold that cell.What it measures — and shows its math
Underneath the loop is deep, deterministic git analysis. Reikon computes a health score from six signals (bus factor, commit quality, TODO density, duplicate code, churn stability, dependency health), estimates tech debt per file from complexity × churn × size, flags files only one person understands, and — unusually for this category — shows the actual math. See Formulas & Methodology to verify any number yourself instead of taking it on faith.What Reikon won’t do
The boundaries are the point — they’re what keep it private and honest:- No hosted service, no account, no PR bot. Branch and diff review run on local git only — no GitHub/GitLab API, no tokens, nothing to authorize.
- No semantic search or vector index. Every signal is deterministic and reproducible, not an embedding you have to trust.
- No AI-written source from Reikon. When you dispatch, your agent makes the change in its own environment and you review the diff. Reikon emits and judges; it never writes your code. Its own write tools touch review notes only.