Solutions
Improve testing, release confidence, and software quality with a shared view of what passed, what failed, and what is simply unreliable.
1 real failure, 1 known flaky suite quarantined
Illustrative interface. Sample data shown.
The problem
When a suite fails often enough without a real cause, the team learns to re-run rather than investigate. The next genuine regression gets the same treatment.
Unit results in one place, end-to-end in another, and a spreadsheet holding the parts nobody automated. Nobody can answer whether the build is safe in under an hour.
The release decision comes down to whoever has the best memory of what usually breaks, rather than to something the whole team can read the same way.
Trends reset every time the suite is refactored, so it is impossible to show whether quality is actually improving over a quarter.
How we help
A single derived answer to whether this build is safe to ship, shared by engineering, QA, and whoever is on the release call.
Unreliable suites are quarantined and tracked as work to be done, instead of quietly blocking every release or being deleted outright.
Quality history follows the area under test rather than the file path, so a restructure does not erase the record.
Each failure routes to the team responsible for the area, along with what was decided the last time the same thing broke.
Results are ingested from the CI you already run. Your tests, your runner, your pipeline — unchanged.
What was run, what it returned, and what the team decided, retained in one place for the next audit or post-incident review.
Products
Bring a branch you would actually ship and see what the readiness signal says.
Have a specific question?Contact our team
