docs(readme): add critique to feature comparison

[connorads]

Nice project, thanks for making hunk and sharing 🫶

I've been using a TUI diff app called critique by @remorses, also built on OpenTUI.
https://github.com/remorses/critique

You're welcome to merge or close this PR, it was more to put critique on your radar - if it isn't already.

Also I'm not sure if the comparisons are exactly fair as I've added them but they are probably still correct. critique could probably get 2 more ✅

• ✅ Multi-file review stream (but no sidebar, maybe that could be split out)
• 🤷 Inline agent / AI annotations ✅ AI review

It also has some other features like web diff sharing which I understand might not be a priority for this project but you might find interesting nonetheless.

[greptile-apps]

Greptile Summary

This PR adds critique (a TUI diff viewer built on OpenTUI) as a new column in README.md's feature comparison table. The change is documentation-only with no impact on code or tests.

• critique is inserted between hunk and lumen with nine capability cells filled in; the PR author self-flags two of those cells as potentially inaccurate — "Multi-file review stream + sidebar" (❌, but critique supports multi-file streaming without a sidebar) and "Inline agent / AI annotations" (❌, but critique has an AI review feature).
• No existing tool entries in the table were modified; all other columns remain identical to the base branch.

Confidence Score: 4/5

Documentation-only change; safe to merge once the two self-flagged capability cells are confirmed by the maintainer.

The only open questions are whether two of critique's cells (multi-file review stream and AI annotations) are correctly marked ❌, which the PR author explicitly calls out as uncertain. These are accuracy concerns in a comparison table, not code defects.

README.md — the two critique capability cells flagged in the PR description deserve a maintainer check before the table is published.

Important Files Changed

Filename	Overview
README.md	Adds critique as a new column in the feature comparison table; some capability values flagged by the PR author as potentially inaccurate

Prompt To Fix All With AI

Fix the following 2 code review issues. Work through them one at a time, proposing concise fixes.

---

### Issue 1 of 2
README.md:91
**Potentially inaccurate ❌ for "Multi-file review stream + sidebar"**

The PR author notes `critique` supports multi-file review streaming but lacks a sidebar. If the row's intent is the full combination (stream **and** sidebar), ❌ is correct. If "sidebar" is a separable sub-feature, a ✅ with a footnote or the row being split would be more accurate. Worth a quick decision from the maintainer before merging.

### Issue 2 of 2
README.md:92
**Potentially inaccurate ❌ for "Inline agent / AI annotations"**

The PR description itself flags this as uncertain: `critique` has an AI review feature (per its own README), which may warrant a ✅ here. The distinction worth pinning down is whether the comparison row covers AI-generated annotations surfaced inline in the diff viewer — if `critique` does this, the cell should be ✅.

_{Reviews (1): Last reviewed commit: "docs(readme): add critique to feature co..." | Re-trigger Greptile}

[benvinegar]

Thanks for putting Critique on the radar. Closing this PR rather than merging the README table change as-is: the comparison cells are still a bit ambiguous, and the current README table has stayed intentionally compact.

If we decide to broaden the comparison table later, we can revisit Critique with freshly verified capability labels.

This comment was generated by Pi using OpenAI GPT-5