Interactive Sessions

@rajagopalanar @parthasarathi_raghavan @arulwatson really neat product - how has adoption been thus far - curious how steep the switching costs are for current dev teams?

Hello Hunters :) Alongside our product launch. It started as a real internal need from one of our team.If Revolte can reshape the AI-SDLC, building one more internal tool isn’t the story.The story is the shift: The recorder is just the first cut.The real proof is the system that built it — AI-SDLC, from intent to production-ready execution.One of our teams needed a simple product/QA recording workflow. The usual answer would have been: approve another tool, add another subscription, and adjust our process around it.But with Revolte, we asked a different question: why buy more when we can build the exact production gap ourselves?The first cut already gave us that “wow” moment — tailored to our workflow, scalable, and ready to evolve with the team.That’s the proof we wanted to show. Not a concept. Already in actionRevolte changes the AI-SDLC — from idea to production-ready software. A new way of thinking about software delivery.Hunters, what would you build with Revolte?P.S. I’m in a different TZ, will catch up soon.🙏

Congrats on the launch. Giving teams both Interactive Sessions and Autopilot under the same governance layer is a practical approach to handling different levels of risk and oversight.

Does it work for every company size ?

How do you balance approve every step with autonomous in one go? No in between?

Interesting approach, saving this for later.

Nice that Revolte does the delivery grunt work but leaves the big calls to engineers. What happens when one of its PRs needs a security fix after it's already merged?

Nice one. Having both modes makes sense - hands-on for the risky stuff, autopilot for the boring tickets. Good luck today!

Love that you made "you approve every step" a first-class feature instead of chasing full autopilot; that trust-through-control approach is exactly what engineering teams actually need.

Honestly i would be more interested in the failure cases than the happy path. Whats the most comman reason an agent run gets stopped?

I can see Interactive Sessions being useful for unfamiliar codebases. does the agent keep context across those sessions?

The audit trail caught my attention more than the code generation. are teams using it mainly for governance or debugging too?

For me the biggest question would be deployment confidence. what happens when an agent hits something unexpected mid deploy?

Cost caps + audit trails are underrated. agent autonomy gets much easier to sell when there is a clear paper trail.

The step by step approval model feels practical. i would trust autopilot more after seeing exactly where i can intervene.