AI writes the docs. DraftView is where a qualified human reviews, edits, and signs off before the change merges, and where the AI's response to that feedback gets verified. Built on top of GitHub.
Signing in only shares your GitHub name and email. DraftView can see a repository only after you install it there, and reviewers never need an account at all.
API v3 introduces cursor-based pagination, a new auth header format, and deprecates the /v1/search endpoint in favor of /v3/query.
v1 is deprecated on June 30, 2026. Migrate by then or requests will start returning 410 Gone.
Catches doc PRs from any AI generator
Writing got automated. Review did not. PRs pile up, age in the queue, and get rubber-stamped: the one outcome review exists to prevent.
Every AI doc PR, across every repo, lands in one inbox with a state and an owner.
GitHub accounts needed for the PMs, Legal, and SMEs who actually catch the mistakes.
To feel the experience on a public PR you already know. No login required.
The EU AI Act asks you to prove a human reviewed AI output. A green checkmark is not evidence.
Use cursor and limit to paginate. The response envelope has been removed in v3.
Deprecated July 2026.
Point DraftView at your docs repos. GitHub still owns the content, the comments, and the merge. DraftView is additive and removable.
Every doc PR arrives in one cross-repo queue with an explicit lifecycle, so nothing ages out or merges under-reviewed.
The right person reviews the rendered page, the loop closes when the agent responds, and an oversight record is kept.
Keep up. Actually review. Close the loop. Prove it.
Every AI doc PR auto-ingests into one cross-repo inbox: what needs a human, what is waiting on the AI, what is stale.
A Google Docs-style review of the rendered page (Markdown, MDX, AsciiDoc), with comments anchored to the prose, not line 47.
Send the Authorization header with a Bearer token on every request.
When the agent pushes a new commit, see the before and after of that exact region, not just that a line changed.
Deprecated July 2026.
Deprecated June 30, 2026.
An append-only sign-off and an exportable human-oversight record: who reviewed, what changed, how long, against which version.
A reviewer comments. The agent pushes a commit. Verifying it actually addressedthe feedback, not just that a line moved, is manual and easy to skip. DraftView ties an “addressed” before and after to every comment, so the reviewer confirms the loop closed in one glance.
See the closed loopDeprecated July 2026.
Deprecated June 30, 2026.
PMs, Legal, and SMEs are the people who can tell whether the AI got it right, and they do not have GitHub accounts and will not get them. They join by email magic link and review immediately. A GitHub-linked teammate pushes their feedback upstream under a real account.
Migrating to API v3 · 2 comments waiting on you. No account needed.
Open review, no loginmagic link · expires in 7 days
A green checkmark on a PR is a sentence, not proof. DraftView owns the durable governance artifact GitHub does not produce.
Who reviewed, what changed, how long, against which version. Captured automatically, never editable after the fact.
The share of AI doc PRs that got a real human read versus rubber-stamped. The invoice is the oversight evidence.
Demonstrable human oversight for EU AI Act Article 14 and procurement. One export, not a scavenger hunt across PRs and email.
Conversations with technical writers shaped how DraftView works.
Getting PM reviews is the biggest problem for any doc-review workflow. Their feedback is disconnected from the original. If you're using GitHub, your reviewers would all have to understand and be able to smoothly work with the source structure. This is pretty unlikely.
The 'old-fashioned' way is the doc writer has to manually implement the changes back to the source. I've only ever practiced the optimal way where all reviewers have access to GitHub and comment on source files. And that almost never happens.
We hate the duplicative Google Doc 'article to source, then source to doc' situation, but also kind of need it. We don't have a better way available.
I do all my drafting in Google Docs. Although it's not the only reason, Google Docs makes the editorial stage of writing much simpler to get feedback from SMEs and to have your writing undergo review.
I have never encountered someone with access to GitHub who can't get lost in convoluted source structure.
The SME feedback is disconnected from the original source. Your reviewers would all have to understand and smoothly work with the AsciiDoc source structure. This is highly unlikely.
No second source of truth. Comments, threads, and review state sync natively.
DraftView sees a repo only after you install it there. Signing in shares only your name and email.
DraftView is the verification view for the AI loop. It is never the AI, and it never merges for you.
One plan per organization. Invite your whole team. You're only billed for members who actually review that month.
No credit card required · cancel anytime
What's an active reviewer?
A member who submitted edits or comments, signed off, or pushed a teammate's review that month. Viewing is always free. Invite everyone, pay only for who reviews.
After the trial
The queue pauses until you subscribe. Nothing is deleted, and your review history (including audit data) is kept.
Annual billing
Annual plans (20% off) are available on request: email us. Existing per-repo Pro subscribers keep their plan and pricing.
Everything you need to know about DraftView. If your question isn't here, we're an email away.
See the experience on a PR you already know in about 60 seconds. No login, no card, no setup.
Signing in only shares your GitHub name and email. DraftView can see a repository only after you install it there.