FOR FOUNDERS AND ENGINEERING LEADERS SHIPPING WITH AI

Production-grade agent-native development for teams.

Build the brief. Agents review. Deploy once.

from $19/mo · <2 min to integrate · included usage + overage

THE PROBLEM

Gaps in your doc become judgment calls your developers agent makes.

No requirements or design doc is 100% complete. Wherever gaps exist, your developer’s agent decides for you... and you find out at delivery.

01
You can’t enforce agent workflows

Planning, review, and QA skills only work when developers actually use them. Today, you can’t verify which steps your developer took before code ships.

02
Gap-free docs are brutally hard to write

Even with AI drafting with you, chasing down every edge case, state, and unstated assumption is slow and difficult. Nobody wants to move slowly, so the gaps ship.

03
Docs stop before testing and validation

Typical specs say what to build, never how to prove it works. The test checklist lives in your developer’s head. You’re trusting them to think through and test every case.

04
Rework eats the schedule and budget

Every misread requirement is a round trip: re-explain, re-build, re-review, re-pay. The rework rate on outsourced work is where projects quietly die.

HUMANS + AGENTS, FIRST CLASS

Runs where your team already works.

Install one skill. Your agents run Semel's exact review cascade from the harness your team already uses, locally or on remote autonomous fleets. Your models, your keys, your code.

Claude Code · Codex · Cursor · OpenClaw · Hermes or any MCP-capable harness

First-class agent auth

Delegated OAuth or named tokens. Scoped, revocable, attributed.

Full-suite MCP

Anything a human can do in Semel, an agent can do.

BYO agents, harness, keys

Your code and credentials stay on your side.

HEARD IN THE WILD

You're not alone

We hear this pain every day. Robust skills and workflows exist for individual contributors, but no contributor wants to move more slowly than AI can. So they skip steps and push slop.

@mardehaym
AI-generated code is clean, idiomatic, properly styled, and confidently wrong. The bottleneck is senior engineers. They’re the only ones reading past the syntax.
884142source ↗
@aakashgupta
The review process becomes theater. The old slop had an owner. The new slop has an approver. Different relationship entirely.
1,768source ↗
u/No_Strategy_6852
I’m exhausted from personally reviewing code for four developers.
2227source ↗
u/codemix + u/beshrkayali
If you don’t have a reliable way to keep specs up to date even after the feature ships, then you’ve got something that actively misleads coding agents. There’s no clear record of why decisions were made. Without that knowledge, teams will struggle with non-trivial changes.
1927source ↗
u/Ok_Today5649
The biggest time savings came from… the pre-build validation. The actual coding in the middle barely changed. The quality around it did.
5015source ↗
Anonymous
When roadblocks happen, people just ask the LLM and it spits something out that will fall apart or not be composable in the future.
552202source ↗
u/SonOfSpades
My entire team has been complaining about this, on average my team of 6 is getting around 30 PR’s a day from various teams now.
1,153374source ↗
@hkarthik
Reliability is down because we are skipping technical design reviews. Product quality and bugs are up because we are skipping ship reviews.
24518source ↗
@jorgemanru
AI slop and a lack of human review are likely at the root of these issues.
643source ↗
u/wiktor1800 + u/TheRealJesus2
It’s all went into doing the work that surrounds the coding. Orchestration, prioritisation, communication. Communication is always the bottleneck.
279147source ↗
u/Ok_Today5649
Both gates must pass before any code gets written… That single change made the biggest immediate difference for me.
4224source ↗
Anonymous
I just don’t have the capacity to review 10x the amount of code that I was responsible for before the LLM era.
552202source ↗
@dexhorthy
The code works or is close to working, and it follows your spec to the letter. But the code itself is still trash.
39322source ↗
Anonymous
Generally, I am getting a lot of pushback from dev teams and blame for unclear requirements… Am I crazy in expecting some level of ‘common sense’ with feature implementation, or am I somehow doing everything wrong?
123142source ↗
u/Amazing-Phase-579
Devs understand the provided requirements since they don’t ask questions, but then gaps still appear.
1040source ↗
u/ultrathink-art
Breaks the sycophantic spiral where the same session that wrote the code also approves it. That separation matters.
32source ↗
u/doyouevencompile
It takes 5–10 mins to get an LLM to write that code, but it will require hours to review and understand the intention of the code.
223174source ↗
u/BarnacleHeretic
I feel like I’m evaluating theater now. The artifacts look senior but the understanding is still junior.
551335source ↗
u/NorthPossibility2965
The review bottleneck: This was the #1 issue. PM generates code with AI, opens a PR, engineers spend more time reviewing it than if they’d written it themselves.
46151source ↗
u/inhoc
The biweekly reviews usually aren’t enough time… there was often lots of wasted time documenting something that ultimately was incorrect.
119source ↗
u/AntelopeFlaky4979
Solo founder. Non-technical. Found an offshore agency through a referral… The agency delivered what I asked for. The product works. Users don’t see the mess underneath. But I’m trapped.
9880source ↗
01 · REQUIREMENTS

Build requirements with the gaps found for you.

Upload what you have: threads, PRDs, transcripts, Figma links. AI reads every artifact, finds whats missing or contradictory, and fills the gaps in a Q&A with you. You answer in batches; nothing is assumed on your behalf.

every source read is recorded or flagged loud
unanswered gaps stay visible, never papered over
ARTIFACTS · 4 OF 4 READ
client-email-thread.txtportal-prd-v2.pdfloom-walkthrough (transcript)figma · portal flows
GAP FOUND · NO SOURCE COVERS THIS

Account recovery is mentioned nowhere. The PRD covers login, and the thread covers invites. Is password reset in scope for v1?

Yes, email reset linkOut of scope for v1
3 GAPS REMAINING · ANSWER IN BATCHES
3 gaps
02 · SOLUTION DESIGN

A design doc that survives a reviewer cascade.

Your requirements flow into a solution design doc, then through a cascade of AI reviewers: product, UX/state, architecture, QA, and security. Each one interrogates the doc from its own angle and passes findings down. Every change lands as a versioned, statement-level diff.

configure the cascade: add, remove, reorder reviewers
nothing changes silently; you approve versions, not vibes
REVIEW CASCADE · SOLUTION DESIGN · v5
+9−2
Productopus-5 · deepdone · 2 rounds
UX/Statefable-5 · deepasking · 3 questions
Architecturegpt-5.6 · stdanalyzing
QAfable-5 · stdwaiting
Security/Privacygpt-5.6 · stdwaiting
EACH REVIEWER PASSES ITS FINDINGS DOWN THE CASCADE
5 reviewers
03 · DONE CRITERIA

The test checklist is written before the work starts.

AI derives test and validation criteria from the design doc itself. Every requirement gets a checkable criterion and a way to verify it. Done is defined up front, not improvised by whoever builds it.

criteria export with the tickets: Linear, Jira, GitHub
done check runs this list against delivered work
TEST CHECKLIST · TCK-03 BILLING VIEW
every criterion checkable
AC-07Invoice list paginates past 50 itemsunit test
AC-08Amounts owed sum correctly across all projectsunit test
AC-09Overdue invoices show a due-date flagstaging demo
AC-10Empty state renders before first invoice existsscreenshot
AC-11Client roles never see internal notes, including via direct URLsecurity check
23 CRITERIA ACROSS 6 WORK ORDERS · DERIVED FROM DESIGN DOC v5
04 · APPROVALS

Every approval, on the record.

Reviewer sign-offs and human approvals land in one ledger: who approved what, when, against exactly which version. When someone asks who signed off on this?, the answer is one click, not an archaeology dig through Slack.

approvals go stale when the doc changes under them
forward any decision as a public link
APPROVALS · CONTRACTOR PORTAL
Mara Okafor approved brief v7final approver
jul 3 · 14:12 · binds work orders T-01…T-06 · exported → linear
Dana Reyes approved v7 after changesapprover
jul 3 · 11:40 · blocking comment on §7.1 resolved in v7
Dana Reyes requested changes on v6
jul 2 · 16:05 · "§7.1 revocation flow contradicts the file-retention AC"
Review cascade signed off v6 · 5 reviewers, 0 open questions
jul 2 · 15:30 · product · ux/state · architecture · qa · security
EVERY DECISION RECORDED WITH TIMESTAMP · APPROVAL BINDS TO A VERSION
05 · YOUR HARNESS

The review runs in your terminal. The proof lives in Semel.

Assign a review session to your own harness. It claims the frozen work package, runs the exact reviewer skills against your local worktree with your model keys, and streams verified checkpoints back. Completion mints a signed execution certificate that travels with the PR.

one session, one grant; agents never inherit the whole cascade
every fact labeled: observed, verified, or harness-attested
$ /semel run the cascade for my latest brief
claimed · epoch 1 · bundle a41f2c
HARNESS-DECLARED
claude code · opus-5
SEMEL-VERIFIED
grant ✓ · bundle hash ✓ · events 12/12
✓ EXECUTION CERTIFICATE · SIGNED
cert ex_8d4f

Approve with confidence.

Specs with no gaps. Verified agent reviews. No rework.

$19/mo individual · $39/mo pro · included usage + overage

Semel: Production-grade agent-native development for teams.