I humbly disagree. Yes, in terms of raw speed I could get much more out of AI. However, my priority is not raw speed. My priority is producing high quality software solutions. Which means I use the AI where it makes sense for my workflow, and my workflow has always been: Small change, review, verify. Another small change, review, verify. Repeat until the problem is solved.
In that workflow, AI still makes me a lot faster, especially by writing most of my single class unit tests for me, or extending / modifying single class unit tests. But the key is keeping the AI workload small and focused. Just as you would do with your own workloads. I rarely ever experience AI slop that way, and in that kind of workflow I have no real need for a tool like the one you're implementing, because I can easily catch those things by reading the small changes the AI makes (which I do of course).
However, I realize not all developers have that luxury. Sadly many seem to be pressured into doing the opposite: Let AI take on larger and larger workloads at once. Or they are falling for the siren song of just letting AI do all their work for them. Whatever it is, I think many will need a tool like yours in their workflows. Which is sad, because it shouldn't be necessary ideally. Ideally we would limit the AI daily output to a quantity we can still carefully review. But alas, I think it is not to be, because reason is powerless in the face of the almighty productivity gain.