Nicheloom visits: 58,238 all-time · 7,637 in the last 7 days

The opportunity tracker for new startups.

Today: 1,008 launches · Niche of the day: specialized calculation tools · See what launched today →

CodeDrift

static analysis for AI-generated code

Get picks like this daily. Today's launch numbers, the top launches, AI and tech news, and a daily opportunity pick, straight to your inbox.

Want to reach these readers? Sponsor an issue.

Hi HN,I built *CodeDrift*, a CLI tool that detects bugs commonly introduced by AI coding assistants like Copilot, Cursor and ChatGPT.Over the last year I noticed that AI tools often generate code that compiles correctly, passes linting and looks reasonable in code review but still contains subtle issues.Some common examples I kept seeing:* async `forEach` loops that never await promises * missing authorization checks (IDOR) * hallucinated dependencies that don’t exist * stack traces leaking sensitive information * request data used without validationThese bugs often slip past ESLint, TypeScript and even human reviewers because the code looks correct.CodeDrift parses the code using the TypeScript compiler API and runs a set of detectors looking for these patterns.Example:``` async function syncProducts(items) { items.forEach(async (item) => { await updateStock(item.id); }); } ```CodeDrift output:``` CRITICAL: async forEach does not await promises Fix: use Promise.all or a for...of loop ```Another example it detects:``` Database query using user-supplied ID without authorization check → potential IDOR vulnerability ```The goal isn’t to replace tools like ESLint or TypeScript, or security scanners like Snyk. It’s meant to act as a safety layer for code generated with AI assistants.The tool runs locally, requires no cloud access, and can be tried with:``` npx codedrift ```I’d love feedback from developers who are using AI coding tools in production.

HN · launched Mar 5, 2026 · 5 upvotes (top 89%) · 0 views

Niche: automated code review tools · 204 launches, 7 in the last 7 days ▼ -22% · Explore this niche →

Category and tags

  • Horizontal
  • Dev tools
  • Developer
  • AI feature
  • Commercial product

Visit website ↗ Source listing ↗

Could you build this?

Partial Basic lint rules or AST checks are easy to scaffold, but building a high-signal static analysis tool that reliably catches subtle hallucinations without high false-positive rates demands deep static analysis and compiler knowledge.

What it would actually take: Requires an AST and control-flow analysis engine (using Tree-sitter or language-specific compiler APIs in Rust or Go) paired with semantic taint tracking to detect missing error checks or invalid assumptions. Developing precise heuristic rules that differentiate genuine developer patterns from subtle AI hallucinations requires seasoned static analysis engineers.

Discussion

4 comments analyzed.

Competitors mentioned: ESLint

Competitors

Other products that read as similar to this one : 555 launches clear the similarity bar, closest 8 shown.

Attention rank: #518 of 556 (itself plus its competitors, highest first, normalized so YC and Product Hunt are compared fairly).

Launched 124 days after the earliest competitor.

The niche, labels, vibe code rating and competitor comparison on this page are analysis by Nicheloom. If you use them, please credit nicheloom.com. How you may use our data.