◇ Could this help me?
Yes. A raw diff forces the reviewer to reconstruct architecture and data flow in their head, and a rendered view of the resulting UI, schema, and API contract makes the reviewer's real question, whether the design is right, directly answerable. The creator is explicit that this supplements rather than replaces code-level review, which is the correct framing. General practice, with the usual caution that a GitHub action gains access to the repository, so its workflow permissions should be read before it is added.
I want visual recaps posted on pull requests instead of reviewing raw diffs. Research the open-source visual-recap skill and its GitHub action: who publishes it, what it generates, which model and harness options it supports, and exactly what repository and workflow permissions the action requests. Report those findings with a recommendation, and add the workflow to a repository only after I explicitly approve. Then, for the most recent pull request in this repository, show me what a recap of it would contain: the UI it changes, the schema it touches, and the API request and response shapes.