loading
Loading.loading
Loading.Yes — if the agents run inside guardrails, not loose on your repo. The safety isn't the model; it's the operating model: scoped permissions so an agent only touches what it should, review gates where a human approves every change, and observability so you can see what it did. That's how we run agent fleets on our own products. Without those three, it's the setup that's unsafe, not the agents.
Most "AI broke our codebase" stories are guardrail failures: an agent given broad write access, no review gate, and no record of what it changed. Put the same agent behind scoped permissions and a human approval step and the failure mode disappears. The model didn't get safer; the operating model around it did.
Scoped permissions: an agent can only read and write what its task needs, never your secrets or production credentials. Review gates: every change lands as a PR a human approves, exactly like a junior's work. Observability: you can see what the agent did, step by step — so a senior can verify it instead of trusting it blind.
Agents propose; people decide. Keeping a developer at the review gate is what makes the output trustworthy and keeps your standards intact — and it's the augment-not-replace model in practice. The craft and the final call stay with your team; the agents carry the volume up to that line.
We start from your real setup — your repo, CI, and review culture — and build the guardrails into it rather than bolting on a separate sandbox. We run this on our own products (the open suite is the proof), so we're hardening your environment the way we hardened ours.
Compare the options
or have us build it — same capability, the other door