open-kritt vs plannotator

plannotator is much bigger: 8.6k stars against 2.1k. Over the days we have tracked them open-kritt moved +25.7% and plannotator +41.1%, so plannotator is growing faster right now.

They split the axes: open-kritt leads on context depth and noise control and customization and model freedom, plannotator on setup ease.

Stars and commit dates come from our own daily tracking. The six axes are read off each project's documentation by our review pipeline, so they describe what a project says about itself, not what we measured in its code.

Where they stand today

Orchestrates focused AI agent workflows in disposable job containers to find, validate and de-duplicate real vulnerabilities with PoC generation and ranking.

Stars
2.1k
Tracked growth
+25.7%
Maturity
Last commit
15h ago
Language
JavaScript
License
AGPL-3.0
Cost to run
Requires model API key (your provider's billing applies).

A local, browser-based review surface that plugs directly into many agent hooks so you can annotate plans, diffs, and HTML and send structured feedback back to the agent.

Stars
8.6k
Tracked growth
+41.1%
Maturity
Last commit
11h ago
Language
TypeScript
License
Apache-2.0
Cost to run
Free, self-hosted; external agent API keys or accounts may be required
0%+41%90 tracked days
Kritt-ai/open-krittbacknotprop/plannotator

Six axes, head to head

Each axis runs 0 to 5. The label under a score is what that project's own docs claim, not a category average.

Axisopen-krittplannotator
Context depth
How much of your codebase it sees before it answers: the open diff, the diff plus related files, or the whole repository.
Whole-repo analysis
Diff-focused
Noise control
How it keeps output volume down — severity thresholds, deduplication, incremental runs over new commits only.
Deduplication & ranking
No noise controls
Customization
How far it bends to your team: custom rules, prompts, style guides, per-path config.
Workflow & rules
Config file options
Privacy
Whether your code stays on your own infrastructure: fully local, self-hostable, or cloud API only.
Self-hosted (cloud models)
Self-hostable
Model freedom
Whether you can point it at any provider, or it is wired to one.
Bring-your-key (multiple)
Multiple providers
Setup ease
What it takes to get a first useful run out of it.
Docker + CLI setup
One-command install

Which one to pick

Pick open-kritt if…

Self-hosted — run customizable, security-focused AI research workflows locally with built-in validation, de-duplication and BYO model access.

  • Context depth: Whole-repo analysis (5/5 against 2/5)
  • Noise control: Deduplication & ranking (5/5 against 1/5)
  • Customization: Workflow & rules (5/5 against 3/5)
  • Model freedom: Bring-your-key (multiple) (5/5 against 3/5)
Runs in cli, web-app. Works with byok, openai, anthropic.

Pick plannotator if…

Local and agent-integrated: pick Plannotator when you want a local browser UI to review agent plans and code diffs and to send feedback directly to the agent.

  • Setup ease: One-command install (5/5 against 3/5)
Runs in cli, ide, coding-agent-plugin, web-app. Works with openai, anthropic, gemini, other-fixed.

What people want from each one

Questions people ask

Is open-kritt better than plannotator?

They split the axes: open-kritt leads on context depth and noise control and customization and model freedom, plannotator on setup ease. open-kritt is worth picking when self-hosted — run customizable, security-focused AI research workflows locally with built-in validation, de-duplication and BYO model access.

Which of open-kritt and plannotator keeps my code private?

open-kritt: Self-hosted (cloud models) (4/5). plannotator: Self-hostable (4/5).

What does each one cost to run?

open-kritt: Requires model API key (your provider's billing applies).. plannotator: Free, self-hosted; external agent API keys or accounts may be required.

Full profiles: Kritt-ai/open-kritt and backnotprop/plannotator. Everything else in Code review agents.