What does Comma's website feedback feature do?

You upload a built site — a zip with index.html at the root, or a project with a dist/, build/ or out/ folder — and Comma hosts it on an isolated preview deployment. Reviewers open the preview inside Comma, select any text on any page and leave a comment on it. Each comment records the page path, the element it was left on and the deployment it was left against.

How is this different from Marker.io, BugHerd or Pastel?

Those tools are built around a human triaging feedback into a ticket tracker, and most work by installing a widget on a site you already host. Comma hosts the build for you and is built around a coding agent closing the loop: the same comments, with their page and element context, are available to Claude Code, Cursor or any MCP client, which can fix the code and mark each comment resolved.

Do reviewers need an account?

Yes, for Websites. A site starts private and you invite reviewers as commenters, or you make it public with comments on, but the review page itself is part of the signed-in app. If you need a no-account review of a single screen, export that screen as one self-contained HTML file and share it as a Comma report instead — report readers can comment without signing up.

Can I review a site that is already hosted somewhere else?

You can link an existing URL and keep a comment thread per page next to it, but Comma cannot highlight text inside a site it does not serve, and many sites refuse to be framed at all. For in-page, anchored comments, upload the build so Comma hosts it.

Does it build my source code?

Built output always works. Unbuilt source (a Next.js or Vite project without a build folder) needs a connected Vercel account, which builds it in its own sandbox. The simplest path is to run your build locally and upload the output folder.

Yes. Websites, reports, commenters and MCP access are on the free plan. The only paid surface is optional AI compute for scheduled routines.

Website feedback your coding agent can act on

An AI tool can now produce a working site in an afternoon. Reviewing it still takes a week, because feedback arrives as a screenshot with a red circle, a Slack message that says "the pricing bit feels off", and a comment about a version you replaced two builds ago. None of it tells the person — or the agent — doing the fixing where.

Comma's Websites feature fixes the pointing. Upload the build, send the preview, and every comment lands on the exact text it is about, on the exact page, against the exact deployment.

How it works

Build the site the way you already do — npm run build, hugo, astro build, whatever produces a folder of HTML, CSS and JS.
Upload it on the Websites tab. A zip with index.html at the root works, and so does a project zip that contains a dist/, build/ or out/ folder — Comma finds the output.
Comma hosts it on its own isolated deployment. Your site's code never runs on Comma's origin, so it can't reach reviewers' sessions.
Invite reviewers. They click through the real site, select a heading, a button label or a paragraph, and leave a comment. The highlight stays on the text for the next reader.
Hand the list to your agent — or work through it yourself.

What a comment carries

The reviewer sees a clean thread: their note, the quoted text, replies, resolved or open. Underneath, each comment also keeps what someone fixing it needs:

The reviewer sees	Also stored with the comment
Their comment and replies	The page path it was left on
The highlighted text	A selector for the element
Open / resolved	The deployment (the exact build) it was on

That is the difference between "the button is wrong" and "on /pricing, the Buy now button inside the second card, on build 7".

Close the loop with Claude Code or Cursor

The comment list is available over Comma's MCP server and the REST API:

list_websites and read_website find the site and its live build.
list_website_comments returns every comment with its page, element and deployment context.
set_website_comment_status marks a comment resolved.

So the loop becomes: reviewers comment, you ask your agent to "work through the open comments on the pricing site", it edits the code and resolves each item as it goes, you upload the new build. Reviewers see their threads resolved instead of being asked whether it's done. Setup takes a minute in Claude Code or Cursor.

Where it fits against feedback widgets

Tools like Marker.io, BugHerd and Pastel are good at what they are built for: a widget on a site you already host, feeding screenshots into Jira or Trello for a person to triage. If that is your process, keep it.

Comma is built for a different shape of work:

You don't have a host yet. The build is on your laptop or came out of v0, Lovable or Bolt. Comma hosts the preview for you — no Vercel project, no staging environment, no DNS.
An agent does the fixing. Comments come with the context a coding agent needs and can be resolved by the agent, not re-typed into a ticket first.
The site sits next to your reports. The same workspace holds your HTML reports, test results and AI-generated pages, with the same comment model.

Honest limits

Reviewers sign in. A Website is private by default; invite commenters or make it public with comments on. For a no-account review of a single screen, share it as a Comma report instead — report readers can comment without signing up.
Uploads carry text files. Images and fonts should use absolute URLs for now.
Unbuilt source needs Vercel. Built output always works; to deploy raw Next.js or Vite source, connect a Vercel account and it builds there.
Previews expire. Deployments are review builds, not production hosting. Upload again when you want a fresh one.
Linked sites aren't annotated. You can attach an existing URL and keep page-level comments beside it, but in-page highlights need a build Comma serves.

Try it

Upload a build to Comma →