⌘K
NextBlock™ CMS Just submitted our application for **NextBlock CMS**! 🚀 NextBlock is an open-source, full-stack CMS framework built natively for **Next.js 16 (App Router + RSC)** and **Supabase (PostgreSQL JSONB)**. We’ve focused on: * **Zero-Config 1-Click Deploy:** Automated Supabase database migrations on build. * **100/100 Lighthouse Defaults:** Tiptap visual editor renders PostgreSQL JSONB directly into React Server Components, eliminating client hydration overhead and HTML sanitization taxes. * **Cortex AI & Native MCP:** Model Context Protocol server support (`/api/mcp`) for deterministic, schema-constrained block synthesis. * **GitHub:** https://github.com/nextblock-cms/nextblock * **Live Sandbox:** https://cms.nextblock.dev Looking forward to the review process and collaborating with the Vercel DX team! 🧱
Axyl1410 Hi! I applied for the Summer 2026 Vercel OSS Program, but I’m not sure whether my application was successfully submitted. I also didn’t receive a confirmation email. Is there any way for applicants to verify whether their application was received, or is there normally no confirmation email after submitting the form? I’d like to avoid submitting a duplicate application if my original submission went through. Thanks!
Ryu Hi Nochinxx, Nice idea. The “five views” framing makes the PR review flow feel much easier to scan than a normal diff wall. One thing I’d consider adding is a small confidence/source indicator per AI comment, especially if the app is summarizing or flagging risky changes. For example: ``` - based on changed file only - based on related files - based on package/config context - needs human verification ``` That could make the AI feedback easier to trust because reviewers can tell whether the comment came from local diff context or a broader repo read. I’d also make “open original PR/file on GitHub” very prominent from every card, so the swipe flow stays fast without becoming a closed review surface.
Nochinxx Thanks, Ryu. Sure, I just added some of the source indicators. However, the idea is also that each user modifies the code so that the flags are more accurate to what they usually check for. I'd also make the “open original PR/file on GitHub” more prominent. Thanks!
Ryu Hi Nochinxx, That makes sense, and nice work moving on those changes so quickly. I like the idea that teams can tune the flags for their own review style. My only thought would be to make the default rules very transparent, even if they are meant to be customized later. Something like a small “why this was flagged” note could help new users understand the baseline before they start editing it. The source indicators already sound like a good step in that direction. I’m definitely not the expert here, but this feels like the kind of tool where trust and explainability matter almost as much as the AI output itself. Really cool project — thanks for sharing it.
