A Feedbucket alternative built around your coding agent.
Feedbucket's whole thesis is "get website feedback into the project-management tool you already use." Pincushion's thesis is: skip the PM tool. Each pin is an agent work packet — selector, DOM snippet, screenshot, viewport, thread — that Cursor, Claude Code, or Codex reads via MCP and turns into a commit, a branch, and a PR.
What Feedbucket does well
Feedbucket is a clean, focused tool for web agencies: add one line of JavaScript to a site, and clients can submit annotated screenshots and screen recordings without installing anything. Each submission arrives with browser and device metadata, and the product's headline feature is deep two-way integration with PM tools — Trello, Asana, Jira, ClickUp, monday and friends — so feedback lands where the agency already tracks work. It's honest, well-executed software with straightforward flat pricing (plans start around $39/month at the time of writing, with a 14-day trial and no per-reviewer seat fees — check their pricing page for current numbers).
Where the model differs
Here's the thing: the PM tool is exactly the destination we think feedback shouldn't need anymore. When the fix is going to be written by a coding agent, a Trello card is a detour. Someone reads the card, re-describes it to the agent, and pastes in the screenshot the client already took. Pincushion routes around that entirely. The pin a client drops on the live site carries the CSS selector, surrounding DOM, screenshot, and viewport — and your agent pulls it directly into the IDE with implement_approved_pins. The agent greps the repo using the selector, makes the change, and calls fix_and_resolve with commit SHA, branch, and PR URL. The client sees their pin resolved with a deploy link, not a card that moved columns.
Like Feedbucket, Pincushion also works with a one-line script tag (plus a Chrome extension for teams that prefer it), so the client-side friction is the same: zero installs, zero accounts for reviewers.
How Pincushion differs
| Pincushion | Feedbucket | |
|---|---|---|
| Reviewer-side capture (script tag, no install for clients) | Yes — script tag or Chrome extension | Yes — script tag or plugins |
| Feedback destination | Your IDE, via MCP (Cursor, Claude Code, Codex, Windsurf) | Your PM tool (Trello, Asana, Jira, ClickUp…) |
| Pin payload designed as agent work packet (selector + DOM + screenshot + viewport + thread) | Yes | Screenshot/video + browser metadata |
| Screen-recording capture | No — screenshots + DOM context | Yes |
| Branch / PR / deploy trail on resolved feedback | Yes, recorded on the pin | Lives in your PM tool, if you maintain it |
| Post-deploy verification (AI re-checks the fix) | Yes (Pro) | No |
| Free tier | Unlimited manual pins, 1 project, 25 AI actions/mo — free forever | 14-day trial, then paid |
| Starting paid price | $19/mo Pro (14-day trial on signup) | From about $39/mo |
Feedbucket delivers feedback to the tool where work gets tracked. Pincushion delivers it to the thing that does the work.
When Feedbucket is the better fit
If your agency's delivery process genuinely runs through a PM board — human developers pulling cards, account managers tracking status in ClickUp — Feedbucket's integrations are the point, and its screen-recording capture is better than ours for "the animation stutters when I scroll" bugs. Pincushion is the better fit when your implementation loop is agent-first: you (or your team) fix client feedback by running /implement in Cursor or Claude Code, and a ticket in a second system would just be a copy of what the pin already knows.
Feedback in, PR out
Reviewers and clients are free and unlimited, forever. The free developer tier covers one project with unlimited manual pins and 25 AI actions a month; every signup starts a 14-day Pro trial with unlimited automation, realtime IDE push, unlimited projects, and access controls. See the loop in Cursor or Claude Code, read how to review AI-built apps, or compare with BugHerd and Usersnap.