We built this because we needed it.
We are a small engineering company. The first place our product runs is on our own software, because something you would not trust with your own business is not something you should be selling.
The gap was never the model.
We set out to run several software products with AI doing a real share of the engineering work: backlog items, reviews, upgrades and browser verification, not isolated chat demos.
Capable AI existed. What teams still needed was a dependable way to assign work, run it in a real environment, enforce access and approval limits, and review credible evidence with the result.
So we built that instead, and it turned out to be the thing every team trying this seriously runs into. We are engineers who built a tool we needed, which is the least fashionable origin story available and still the one that tends to produce the best products.
- Builds
- Nova, the AI engineer for software teams
- Runs on it
- Our own product portfolio, first
- Based
- Remote, with a US entity
- Contact
- success@novacore.ai
Four things we designed around.
Instructions alone are not a safeguard
Your team needs enforceable limits and approval rules around any action that carries authority.
Real work does not fit in a chat window
It waits for people, takes time and needs to remain visible when a tool or AI provider changes.
You should not be locked to one AI
This is the fastest-moving part of the industry. Which one you use should be a setting, not a decision you have to live with for two years.
A claim you have to walk back was never worth making
We would rather write the limitation on the page than have you find it in a security review.
We are customer number one.
Our own software runs on it as an ordinary customer, on exactly the same setup you would get, not a privileged internal version. Which means when something is wrong, we find it in our own work rather than in yours.
We are also clear about what that does not prove. Our codebases are newish and small. They do not test what an established organisation will hit first: an old codebase, a slow and flaky test suite, an entrenched process, a real approval hierarchy, and far more happening at once.
That gap only closes by running against somebody else's real code, which is the honest reason we would rather talk to you now than polish for another two quarters.
Come and try to break it.
The most useful conversations we have are with the people whose job is to find the hole. If that is you, bring the questions.