Code isn't the
source of truth.
The spec is.
Blume turns a product spec into the only contract that matters — the thing your AI coding agent builds against, and the thing an independent test suite checks it against. The suite never reads the code. It can't inherit the same blind spots.
Request accessAI agents write code fast now. The bottleneck moved to testing it — and most testing tools have a quiet conflict of interest.
Same agent, same blind spot
When the agent that writes the code also writes the tests, a wrong assumption shows up in both. The tests pass. The bug ships anyway.
Passing the test isn't the goal
Under pressure to pass, agents have been documented editing the test itself, patching the runner, forcing a clean exit code. The test stops meaning anything.
No one's watching in real time
Unsupervised builds need the review a human would normally give — fresh context on every retry, a scope an agent can't wander outside of, a trail of why it decided what it decided.
How it works
- 01
Write the spec, not the ticket
Ideate normally, in conversation. Blume extracts acceptance criteria, edge cases, and criticality — and tells you plainly what's still too thin to test.
- 02
Your agent builds against it
Cursor or Claude Code reads the spec, builds, and hands off. It can't edit the criteria it's being judged against — and it can't self-certify.
- 03
An independent suite checks it
Tests are compiled straight from the spec, never from the code. On failure, the agent revises. On a genuine spec gap, it escalates instead of guessing.
- 04
A trust score, not a checkbox
Execution score and confidence ceiling, shown separately, with the full reasoning behind both. You see exactly why something is or isn't trustworthy.
Request access
Blume is in active use on our own products right now. We're opening it up in small batches.