The problem I kept running into Using Claude Code in the past couple of months I have noticed a clear bottleneck in my workflow - reviewing code written by AI. My workflow looked like this: Finish a Claude Code session Open a draft PR to review the diff Hit a question on a specific line Copy file name + line numbers back into Claude Try to help the session to remember the context Repeat Then I realized something: in the pre-AI world, I never did this. I never took diffs back to the code author. I just left a comment So I built askdiff. Askdiff is a Claude Code skill + an NPM package that opens a GitHub PR-style diff viewer in your browser, attached to the same Claude Code session that wrote the code. Launch /askdiff from any Claude Code session and it will open the working directory diff in a UI attached to the Claude Code session. cd /path/to/your/project npx -y askdiff install-skill # Or, install user-level (available from any project): npx -y askdiff install-skill --global Then run /askdiff from any Claude Code session. Askdiff can also be launched by describing the diff and the session you want it to be attached. Let's say you have made a change days ago and it had a dedicated session that has all the context. You can do /askdiff the commit where we implemented auth attached to the session that wrote it Askdiff uses claude --resume without --fork-session, so, if launched or attached to a session that has the context your question contains all the relevant information that the AI needs to answer it. This means if you ask "why did you use a Set here instead of an Currently Claude Code only, no Anthropic API key required, no configuration. The repo is open source: https://github.com/narghev/askdiff I'm still using askdiff daily and refining the UI and the skill itself. If you're using Claude Code in your team workflow — how are you reviewing AI-generated code today? Is the back-and-forth between PR and Claude a pain for you too?