Launching today
Tiden
Intent verification for coding agents
88 followers
Intent verification for coding agents
88 followers
Tiden verifies your coding agents built what you actually asked for. Most checks run inside the session that wrote the code, so the tests agree with it by construction. Tiden keeps your intent as requirements that branch and merge like code, and checks every change against that record. The verdict comes from tests run in your environment; no model grades the diff. You decide what merges, and production errors trace back to the release. Works beside Claude Code, Cursor, Codex and Copilot.
Free Options
Launch Team
Tines The single, secure environment for agents, apps, and automations.
Promoted
Hi Product Hunt, I'm Nikita, and this is Tiden, the product we've been building for the past year. It's for engineering teams shipping agent-written code every day who want to let agents do the coding while keeping control of what ships.
Qase is a software testing platform used by tens of thousands of builders, and 9 years of building it for them taught us a lot about how quality work gets done. Last year that changed on our own team: agents started producing most of the code, and the rest of our process didn't speed up with it. Review, testing, release, keeping requirements current: all of it became bottlenecks.
Other engineering teams tell the same story. A gaming publisher I talked to, with about 1k+ developers, saw pull request volume go up 4 to 5 times while the number of features they shipped stayed flat. A payments company described 10 times the coding output and 10% more delivery.
The problem underneath it
An agent session produces the code, the tests that pass on that code, and the docs describing what it built. The next session reads those docs as fact. Every artifact agrees with every other one, because they all came from the same place. A QA automation lead at a tax and accounting platform put it best: "If you have an agent that decides what to build, and then another agent is grading what's being built against what was actually built, you're essentially encoding the wrong thing. Your tests will pass, they'll be green, but it wasn’t what you wanted."
The two usual fixes, another rules file in the repo and better AI code review, both sit inside that same loop. The judge has to sit outside it.
What Tiden does
Tiden is that judge. It's intent verification for coding agents: it sits beside your agents, whichever ones you use, and verifies that what they built is what you actually asked for. It keeps that intent as specs, versioned like code, and checks every change against them rather than against the session that produced it.
Every agent session becomes a closed loop:
A session hook captures what you asked for before the first edit
The change comes back as a requirement for you to review; requirements branch and merge like code
Tiden picks the tests the change touches, runs them in your environment, and the agent fixes what fails before anything merges
The gate is tied to the spec. Red tells the agent what to fix. Green is a pass you can defend, with the evidence attached
In production, an error traces back to the release, the change and the prompt behind it, and the fix comes with the test that was missing
Tiden works beside Claude Code, Cursor, Codex and Copilot, and belongs to none of them. Specs live as one versioned record every agent reads from, instead of a growing pile of markdown. You set the thresholds and the gates, and a person approves anything the loop can't settle.
One limit, stated plainly: Tiden checks the work against what you asked for. Whether you asked for the right thing is still a human judgment.
Get started
Tiden is live at https://tiden.ai. The CLI installs in one command, the docs are at https://docs.tiden.ai, and Starter and Team both come with a 14-day free trial. If you'd rather talk to us first, there's a short form on the site: https://tiden.ai/contact.
What I'd like from you
Honest feedback over upvotes. Where does your team feel this gap most: review, regression, release, or production? What would make you trust an external check?
How easy is it to add Tiden to an existing project that's already using Cursor or Claude Code?
@maklyen_may Its straightforward create your product give your code repository to Tiden. Install CLI and Setup Tiden. Whole setup is done within half day and it starts working in background along with your coding agent Cursor, Claude Code etc. Its agent neutral by design. https://docs.tiden.ai/docs/getting-started/quickstart
@maklyen_may, we tried to keep it simple!
Once you install Tiden CLI (part of Tiden), it sets up all the skills and hooks you need.
After that, you can use Claude just like you normally would. The hooks and built-in Tiden skills handle everything behind the scenes.
Can Tiden catch cases where the code passes all tests but still doesn't match what the user asked for?
@daniel_henry4 Yes, that is USP of Tiden, it tests against the original intent captured as a spec even before single line of code is written by agent. So its verifies against intent - what user asked for. It even supplements missing impact that user may not have defined based on context graph which maintains all relationships and dependencies between different product feature.
I like that the final verdict comes from actual tests instead of an AI judging the code. That feels more reliable.
@maali_baali Yes, tests are enforceable boundary that protects against agents claiming their own victory.
The ability to trace production errors back to a release is a useful addition. It could make debugging much less frustrating.
A green test suite can still be answering the wrong question. I like that Tiden keeps the request as a separate record for checking what ships.
@oleksii_sekundant The tests act as enforceable boundary to reduce the risk of regression and take a away load from CI-CD pipeline. Tiden's ability to maintain test coverage as product evolves on its own takes away lot of maintenance overhead engineering team faces today.
Hi Product Hunt Community,
I am Nitin, and I am product manager for Tiden. Today, after six months of building, we are finally sharing it with you.
Here is the problem in one line: your agents are fast, but your delivery is not.
Coding agents can write a change in minutes. Yet that same change often takes days to reach production. The PR waits because nobody is sure what else it touches. CI catches a regression on the second push. A reviewer spots a function the agent invented. The code got faster. The delivery did not.
The data backs this up. In Stack Overflow's 2025 Developer Survey, trust in AI accuracy fell to 29%, and 66% of developers said they spend more time fixing "almost right" code. Faros AI found that teams with high AI adoption merge 98% more PRs, while review time rises 91%. Google's DORA research put it simply: AI amplifies what is already there.
The market's answer so far has been a point AI tool for every phase: one for context, one for tests, one for PR review, one for release signals. They are faster cars on old roads. The lifecycle underneath was designed for humans who read specs and follow instructions. Agents sometimes do, sometimes do not, and sometimes invent things that were never there. Throwing more AI at the problems AI creates is not a solution. It is an illusion.
So we started from a blank slate. Tiden is a continuous verification system for agentic coding teams, built around one idea: an enforceable boundary.
Here is how it works:
1. Before a single line of code: Tiden builds a context graph of your system, linking features, requirements, tests and components. When a change comes in, the agent walks that map, finds what is affected and fills the gaps. The result is captured as intent, and that intent becomes the boundary the code must deliver against.
2. Clear context, not all the context: the coding agent gets exactly what is relevant, so it ships in fewer iterations and gets it right more often.
3. Before the PR, not after it: Tiden picks the functional and regression tests that matter for this change, based on requirements and risk, and runs them before a PR exists. Only when that quality gate passes can the agent open the PR.
4. After the merge: release evidence is assembled automatically, and production issues are tracked, feeding the next change.
In our own use, cycle time from starting a change to releasing it came down by almost half. Not because code was written faster, but because the most of rework loops simply stopped happening.
Tiden is built by the team behind Qase, so almost a decade of quality assurance thinking has gone into how verification should work when agents write the code.
We would love your honest feedback:
- Where does your agentic workflow break down today?
- What would you need to trust an agent's change without reading every line?
- What is missing?
You can start a 14-day trial at tiden.ai. I will be here all day answering questions.
Agents build. Tiden verifies. Your team decides.