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}

[greptile-apps]

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.

Prompt To Fix With AI

This is a comment left during a code review.
Path: README.md
Line: 91

Comment:
**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.

How can I resolve this? If you propose a fix, please make it concise.

Note: If this suggestion doesn't match your team's coding style, reply to this and let me know. I'll remember it for next time!

[greptile-apps]

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 ✅.

Prompt To Fix With AI

This is a comment left during a code review.
Path: README.md
Line: 92

Comment:
**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 ✅.

How can I resolve this? If you propose a fix, please make it concise.