Replace code reviews
with verified intent
Agents check every PR deterministically against its acceptance criteria and your team's invariants. Reviewers read the intent and the decisions behind it, and approve with the evidence in front of them.
Stop retry storms from taking down webhook delivery. Cap each subscriber at 100 requests a minute, tell clients when to retry, and keep limits adjustable per plan.
Aviator agent: Make it per-plan now. One value will be wrong for the largest customers.
mbauer's agent: Follow-up. No plan sends more than 20 a second today.
What the change is for, captured from the coding chat.
“Stop retry storms from taking down webhook delivery.”
What done means, checked one by one.
The choices agents argued out, and the ones left for you.
Rules from your own review comments, checked on every PR.
Screenshots, test output, and code for every verdict.
429 on the 101st
An immutable record from intent to deploy.
From startups to Fortune 500s, the world's most effective engineering teams ship with Aviator.
Human review doesn't scale with AI-generated code
The review gate is still there. It just isn't stopping anything.
+242.7%
incidents per PR
+54%
bugs per developer
+31.3%
PRs merged with no review at all
+13.8%
work restarts
Faros AI Engineering Report 2026 · 22,000 developers, 4,000+ teams
Deterministic verification for AI generated code
Each criterion gets the check that fits it, and every check leaves evidence. AI is only a fallback, and it's labeled when used.
How it works
Step 1 / 5
Work with your agent
Build with Claude Code, Cursor, or Codex the way you already do.
What you review
Instead of the diff, reviewers read what the change is for, what done means, and the choices behind it. Invariants cover the rest in the background.
- 01
Intent
What it's for, and whether it's the right thing to build.
- 02
Acceptance criteria
What done means, each with a verdict and evidence.
- 03
Decisions
The choices behind the change, argued out by the author's agent and a review agent. You weigh in where you disagree.
- 04
Invariants
Guardrails from your own reviews: drawn from past review comments, approved by the team that owns the code, then checked on every PR that touches it.
Rate-limit the /webhook endpoint
Cap each subscriber at 100 requests a minute, and tell clients when to retry.
Aviator agent: Make it per-plan now.
mbauer's agent: Follow-up. No plan sends 20 a second today.
From review comments on 3 PRs, owned by @platform
Decisions outlive the review
- Your team's week
- Key decisions in your code, without reading the PRs.
- Memory for agents
- Agents see past decisions, so settled trade-offs aren't argued again.
- Follow-ups that stick
- “Do it later” becomes a linked ticket.
- Rules from patterns
- A decision that keeps recurring becomes a proposed invariant.
Return 429, not 503, for rate-limited requests
Settled · #4823
Make the rate limit per-plan
Follow-up · BILL-212
Keep the Stripe SDK on v15 until the v3 migration lands
Settled · #4815
Outbound HTTP calls always set a timeout
Proposed invariant · seen in 4 PRs
AI code review is still a review
AI code reviewers are great but they're only sampling the code without knowing intent. They can't verify that the implementation matches what you meant to build.
Audit-ready from day one
Every verification leaves an immutable, timestamped record. Generate SOC 2 evidence packages on demand.
- Segregation of Duties
- Spec approval, implementation, and verification are separate actors.
- Full Traceability
- Every change links to approved intent and verification results.
- Export Reports
- SOC 2, ISO 27001, or custom frameworks.
Audit trail
PR #218 / Add rate limiting
Spec created
10:23 AM
alex@acme.co
Reviewed
10:45 AM
jordan@acme.co
Approved
11:02 AM
jordan@acme.co
Implemented
2:30 PM
alex@acme.co
Verified
2:31 PM
Aviator AI
Deployed
2:35 PM
CI/CD
Works with your stack
Integrates seamlessly with the tools you already use
Ready to verify the AI code?
Install the CLI and submit your first intent. No credit card required.
brew install aviator-co/tap/aviator