Tiden

Nikita and the team were shipping exciting features and products before, this one is a gem 💎

Love how Tiden is addressing the gap where AI coding assistants and agents can generate 1000s of lines of code in seconds, but it’s very difficult to validate the quality of that code, especially at enterprise scale. Tiden with Claude looks like a killer combination.

Can I use it without tests?I just want to keep specs somewhere and use them across many repositories.

Hey 👋 Another engineer from Tiden is here, too!It's a really interesting experience to use Tiden to build Tiden. I think it could be interesting for other people too!At first, changing so many domains at once seemed risky to me, but with Tiden, the process went smoothly.Tiden helps track every detail and edge case while your product keeps changing, especially over the long term.I believe you should give it a try!

The real challenge with AI coding is not writing code faster but it’s making sure the code actually does what you intended.

Does this work if the team never wrote requirements in the first place? Most of our "spec" lives in tickets and people's heads

When Tiden flags a requirement as untested, what stops the agent from writing a shallow test just to turn it green?

Joined the Tiden team not from the very beginning, so there already was a lot of functionality, taken decisions and other things that make me nervous when I join new teams. Especially in this AI era, where even the most frontier model might want to shape the reality around itself in order to finish its job.But building Tiden while using Tiden makes me worry much much less, I know Tiden will force my agent to take into account previous decisions and existing specs and no adjacent features will be broken because of that.

Engineer on the Tiden team here. My favourite bugs from building it were in our own gate, because they all had the same shape: it was too easy to pass.Two of them: A change that touched no known requirement passed. Nothing matched, so there was nothing to check, and "nothing to check" counted as green. Now it's a refusal, and accepting that risk is an explicit decision.A requirement counted as verified on someone else's green run. Now only results from the change's own runs count.Same lesson both times: a verifier is worth exactly as much as it is hard to fool. We build Tiden with Tiden, so we hit these ourselves first.What's the sneakiest way your CI went green without really checking anything?

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.

How easy is it to add Tiden to an existing project that's already using Cursor or Claude Code?

The ability to trace production errors back to a release is a useful addition. It could make debugging much less frustrating.

Can Tiden catch cases where the code passes all tests but still doesn't match what the user asked for?

I like that the final verdict comes from actual tests instead of an AI judging the code. That feels more reliable.

Keeping requirements updated alongside code changes sounds useful. It could help teams catch things that get missed development.