# Best alternative to just using an AI chat app

> Paste a screenshot into ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot, Cursor, or Grok and you get opinions. ReviseMy keeps AI as second opinion — humans mark, approve, and own the agent’s next_action.

Page: https://revisemy.com/alternatives/ai-design-critique

## Why people look for a AI chat apps alternative

- Chat critiques vanish; agents re-invent the brief every pass.
- You need human must-fix / keep intent that overrides model confidence.
- Overlapping AI findings should enrich a mark — not invent conflicting must-fixes.
- You want Refresh second opinion without flipping approve / request-changes.

## What to look for

- Whether AI output is labeled as suggestions only
- Whether humans remain the only deciders
- Whether agents get structured next_action instead of prose
- Whether checklist runs without an API key and vision is optional BYOK

## Worth a look

### Figma comments

Human critique on design files — still the right surface before pixels exist in the product.

Best for: Pre-build design critique without an agent loop.

- Native to design files
- Great for systems and craft
- Not an MCP agent handoff

## When to keep AI chat apps

- Keep ChatGPT/Claude critique for quick taste brainstorms and learning prompts.
- Move to ReviseMy when you need persistence, authority, and an agent that follows next_action.
- You can paste a screenshot for a quick opinion, then open a ReviseMy review for the real pass.
- If you only ever want ephemeral chat advice and no ship gate, stick with an AI chat app.

## Questions

### Does ReviseMy still use AI?

Yes, optionally. A free checklist always runs; vision needs your own API key. Both are second opinion — never approve/request-changes.

### Can the agent ignore second opinion?

Agents should treat second_opinion as hints and prioritize work_packets.pins. That is the product contract.

### Where do craft lenses come from?

See the second opinion page — published craft sources distilled into hints, not celebrity endorsements of your UI.