Product Catalog

BI

Bitboard

We’re Connor and Ambar from BitBoard (https://bitboard.work). BitBoard is an agentic analytics workspace. We give you the infrastructure and visualization layer to analyze data with AI. Today, we’re launching dashboards that you and your agents can work on together. You can connect your coding agent or AI chat to BitBoard and build live reporting. Here’s a demo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPl0K565a7c. AI tools treat data analysis as ephemeral, making it hard to report or collaborate. Legacy BI tools weren’t intended for AI users, so they bolt on chatbots and can’t offer meaningful control to your agents. Software can now make far more of a business legible than BI ever could, but neither legacy BI nor chat bots are built to handle it. Our original product was AI agents for administrative tasks in healthcare (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44237769), but customers kept pulling us toward their data analysis problems: queries scattered across disparate sources, spreadsheets floating everywhere. We kept building tooling for addressing that, and at a certain point those tools were becoming our product. We ran into several problems. Agents made bad inferences because they had no context on the business. They couldn't be trusted to make decisions because nothing checked their work. And anything one agent or one person figured out was invisible to everyone else. In BitBoard, humans and agents interact with the same data primitives but get tools designed for their own work. We’re building dashboards to make the human reading experience better. These dashboards progressively use intelligence - starting from code or SQL queries and leading to full embedded apps. Humans and agents will need to agree on methods to interpret data, so we’re letting both contribute to canonical sources, entities, and measures (using your favorite semantic model or ours). Every answer comes with provenance, and the same call with the same parameters returns the same number. Looking ahead, these shared primitives let long-running agents operate inside a business, and we're building those agents too. An agent needs a measurable goal and a way to verify its work. BitBoard gives it both. The agent takes a problem like a metric drifting or a funnel leaking and figures out what to do next. Its work becomes datasets, dashboards, and traces that the team can observe and sign off on. Technically, we’re building a collaboration engine with isomorphic updates for humans and AI, columnar analysis (we use DuckDB and Apache Arrow), grounding and verification infrastructure, and enabling long running tasks with agent containers and traces. For agentic work we’re big fans of applying LLM judgement to discover problems, and then generating deterministic software to automate them. Try it out at https://app.bitboard.work. (We require an email so we can set up your account). We’re excited about how data analysis and science can change in the age of LLMs, and welcome all your thoughts!

CC

Command Center, the AI coding env for people who care about quality

Hi HN! We’re Jimmy and Ray. Jimmy is a Thiel Fellow with a Ph. D. from MIT who has worked on programming tools for 15 years; Ray became VP of Sales at a $2B company when he was 19 and has built side-businesses vibe-coding. Last year, we set to answer the question “If AI can write code 100x faster, then why aren’t you shipping 100x faster?” What we learned shocked us — even fairly nontechnical people and solo founders told us they were spending more than half of their development time reading the AI-written code. And much of the rest of the time was spent either de-slop-ping it, or wishing they had done so. As luck turns out, our last two products were a tool that quickly onboards people to large codebases ( https://x.com/0xjimmyk/status/1873357324229984677 ) and trainings that taught deep concepts of code quality to CEOs, YC founders, and engineers at top companies ( mirdin.com ), so we were extremely well-positioned to solve these problems. Command Center is an agentic coding environment focused on quality. With a few keypresses, you can start building 3 features at once and soon have 3 diffs ready, each consisting of 2000 changed lines across 50 files…. This is normally the point where you think “Crap, what now?” With Command Center, at this point you simply click “Refactor,” and watch the vibed slop turn into readable robustness. Then you click “Generate Walkthrough,” and then suddenly, to read a 2000 line diff, instead of scrolling up and down trying to make sense of it, you just press the right arrow key 200 times. See something you don’t like? Click on line 37, type “Do this and all other network fetches in the background Cmd+Enter,” and you have a few more agents getting your code into final shape. Click or type “Commit,” “Push,” “Create PR” — you just shipped a high quality, non-slop feature We’re striving to be the best at every step of the pipeline, but can just try Command Center in pieces wherever you feel your current workflow is weakest. We have users who do all their coding in Zed or the Codex app, and then jump over to Command Center for a walkthrough when it finishes running. There’s even a skill that will pop open a Command Center walkthrough from the environment of your choice. Or you can just keep Command Center running while you do your work elsewhere, and if your AI deletes anything, you have Command Center’s snapshots to the rescue. We launched quietly last year and have been refining since. The quality and usability have kept going up, and Command Center is now ready for a lot more attention. Since our quiet launch, we’ve seen at least a dozen other agentic coding environments appear….approximately all of which have the same feature set focused on the part which is already easy (generating the first version of the code) and with at best a shoddy answer to the hard part (everything that comes after). Command Center’s focus is making the hard parts easy. Here’s what our users have to say: “[The refactorings] give your LLM taste. I’ve never seen an LLM write code this good before.” — Doug Slater, Staff Engineer, Climavision “With Command Center walkthroughs, I can get through a 400-line diff in less than half the time.” — Prateek Kumar, Platfor Engineer, Sumo Logic This product is not for everyone. If you’re someone who preaches “the prompt is the source, the code is the compiler output,” then you probably won’t enjoy Command Center. But if you want to uphold traditional engineering discipline while also shipping 20 PRs a day, then this is the environment for you.

IN

Intunedhq

Hey HN, we're Faisal and Ahmad from Intuned (https://intunedhq.com). We’re building a platform for building, deploying, and maintaining browser automations. Customers primarily use the Intuned AI agent to automate websites that don't expose APIs. Common use-cases include scraping data, pulling reports, and submitting forms. As the website changes, our agent also helps automatically heal the automation. On Intuned, browser automations are created by an AI agent and run as code. Our infra captures the context of every run, allowing our agent to debug and maintain the underlying code - to keep the automations working over time. This way, we’re able to offer the predictability, speed, and cost of code, without the painful parts of writing and maintaining it. Here’s a demo of building a scraper on Intuned: https://youtu.be/ruZP73bK4FU Here’s a demo of using AI to maintain a project: https://youtu.be/e4R4hLdHBro Backstory: we were accepted into YC for a completely different idea. During the batch, because of Faisal's background at UiPath, several batchmates asked us whether RPA tools could fill API gaps in their products by automating websites without APIs. When it was time to pivot, we went back to those founders to dig deeper. (RPA in this context is referring to using UI automation to do complete non-testing tasks) We discovered that the actual hard problem in browser automation is maintenance. Websites change, selectors break, and failures can be painful to reproduce and fix. So in early 2024, we decided to take a crack at this problem with a handful of customers. It needed a fair number of iterations before we landed on our current code-first approach. How it works: Intuned is infra + agent, deeply integrated. On the infrastructure side, Intuned is a managed runtime for browser automation code. Projects are usually Playwright-based TypeScript or Python. Users can write them directly in our online IDE, or hand the work off to the agent. Either way, once deployed, the platform runs each project in its own isolated machine and handles auth/session reuse, scheduling, batch execution, concurrency, observability, and the other plumbing around running browser code. On the agent side, it took us a few iterations to get to the current approach. Our initial attempts were rigid pipelines: collect requirements, inspect the site, generate code, then try to patch whatever broke. It looked reasonable on paper, but real websites are too messy for fixed paths. Late last year, we were planning to ship that version when stronger models landed and harnesses like Claude Code and Codex showed what a more open-ended coding agent could do. We built a prototype on the Claude Agent SDK, it felt much better than what we had, and we scrapped the release and decided to rebuild the agent. The rebuild came down to three pieces around the SDK: an execution environment for running long agent sessions reliably, a CLI that exposes the platform to the agent so it operates Intuned the way engineers do, and a custom plugin (skills + MCP) built around what we've learned building browser automations. The infra-agent integration is where the product gets more interesting. The runtime doesn't just run the automation; it captures the context needed to debug it when it fails: params, results, traces, logs. That enables features like Fix with AI, where you can open a failed run and have the agent investigate and prepare a fix. The same integration powers a feature called self-healing. For configured projects, the platform detects failures, starts an agent session with the relevant context, and either proposes a fix for review or deploys it automatically. Demo: https://youtu.be/IVHIXw0lYMs We recently also packaged the infra and agent as an API called Web Task API, here is a demo: https://youtu.be/1olRn3l95vw We strongly believe that browser automations can and should be faster, cheaper and more predictable. Check us out at https://app.intuned.io/, we have a free tier with trial credits for your first few automations. Excited to hear your thoughts, questions, and feedback!

IN

Integuru

Hey HN! We’re Alan and Richard from Integuru (YC W24). We generate fast, reliable integrations for platforms lacking official APIs. About 2 years ago, we released the first agent that reverse-engineers network traffic to build integrations (https://github.com/Integuru-AI/Integuru). Since then, we’ve developed a new approach to reverse-engineer platforms’ source code directly. This solution also includes authentication support. Here’s a demo: https://youtu.be/4l2L8fILC2g?si=nbWbDiFrWZIWRPM7. Many AI products need to integrate with web apps, but platforms often lack official APIs. So far, there are two main ways to integrate: browser automation and via network requests. We set out to build the original agent because we ourselves suffered from RPA’s latency, reliability, and throughput issues. The original agent solved many of the prior issues, but it wasn’t perfect either. The original agent did things the obvious way: (1) have a human do the action; (2) the agent observes the network requests and (3) recreates them. That got us far, but it only supported the path the user triggered. In production, we saw all the uncovered cases: different states, missing fields, permission differences, hidden validations, and request changes we could never catch in a single run. So we started building a new solution from the ground up. Our first step was to add agents that trigger many variations of the same action. To protect the platform’s data integrity, we added a gating layer that blocks outbound requests. This lets us observe the exact request structure, branching behavior, and platform logic without accidentally mutating the live system. But this still wasn’t enough. Some logic is hard to surface by execution alone. A lot of the business rules live in the frontend bundle. So we set out to analyze the true “answer sheet” for each platform: the source code. After experimenting, we got this working. We built a source-code analysis layer that deobfuscates and traces the code associated with each action. In practical terms, our system can handle most tricky edge cases without triggering all flows. Together, these two layers result in much better coverage of the production surface area. They support more edge cases, fail less often, and avoid a lot of the brittle one-off fixes that usually come later. Finally, we added auto-healing and API doc generation to improve reliability and the UX. We also offer a 24/7 on-call maintenance team for companies on the production plan. We now spend most of our time supporting vertical AI companies and helping them connect to their customer systems. We offer a free plan for integrating with one platform and charge for additional platforms, accounts, and overage API calls. For instance, we help healthcare AI companies connect to EHRs and payer portals, and logistics companies connect to TMSs and ERPs. Some companies are now running more than 1M monthly requests per platform. Across our production users, API calls complete in ~3 seconds at 99.9%+ success rate on average. We’re also building a library of APIs that users can use out of the box. That said, this version still has limitations we want to iterate on. Although we already tackle some anti-bot mechanisms, the agent still struggles to generate integrations with heavily anti-botted platforms. When the agent fails, our on-call team steps in to improve the agent or build the integration manually if the customer requests it. Also, the UX for generating an integration is still quite manual. Our next step is to build a CLI experience, so people and their agents can create, test, and use integrations in a much more flexible manner. This also prevents humans from having to wait for Integuru to finish its tasks. We want to one day allow developers and agents to integrate with all platforms instantly. Integuru is an ongoing effort. We’re passionate about automating integrations and would love your feedback!

LC

LINQ CLI

Hey my name is Patrick, I’m a co-founder and CTO of Linq. We’re an API for sending and receiving iMessages (it does RCS/SMS too). It can do everything you can manually in iMessage (typing indicators, reactions, delivery emphasis, FindMy etc.) Our main customers are companies building conversational agents but we’re wanting to make it easier for developers to get started for free. To do that we built a CLI that lets you manage up to 20 contacts and gives you full API access for free. I’d love your feedback so we can keep improving it. Install via npm using: npm install -g @linqapp/cli Recently, I used the CLI to connect my Claude bot to WeWork & iMessage and haven’t had to use the WeWork app in a few weeks to book rooms. Github: https://github.com/linq-team/linq-cli Landing page: https://linqapp.com/cli Three constraints you should know about: 1. The free tier requires inbound-first (ie someone must text you before you text them) and has a limit of 20 contacts. This is to avoid spam. 2. The line is shared. This means a few other people will be using the same phone number as you, none of our paid production lines work this way. If you're testing enterprise grade our sandbox mirrors production, but has a 7 day time limit. The CLI is shared because there is a real infrastructure cost to us and we want to give this away for free. 3. We require an email to sign up. To avoid spam + our infrastructure cost. To be precise about "open source", it's the CLI. The whole client is in that repo, so you can read exactly what leaves your machine. The backend that delivers messages is closed.

TR

Trychert

Hey HN! We’re Gary and Ian, and we’re building Chert (https://www.trychert.com/), an API for businesses to send, receive, and automate iMessage conversations at scale. Check out our demo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRdwvVxMMoI. We originally started by building products on top of iMessage because the blue bubble interface, typing indicators, and reactions made agentic conversations feel more human than ones on SMS/RCS. These included a one-shot iMessage agent builder that reached 2,000 users in one week and an automated iMessage outbound sequencer that sent thousands of outbound messages per day. The hard part is that iMessage does not have a native API like SMS/RCS. Sending and receiving iMessages requires a separate infrastructure that is difficult to set up and maintain, especially at scale. As we talked to more companies, we realized that the highest-volume use cases for iMessage were not B2C agents or even sales. They were things like customer service, missed-call text-back, cart abandonment, and inbound lead capture in verticals like home services, DTC brands, and property management that drive the highest volume. Furthermore, these companies often need additional support, such as custom infrastructure setup (e.g. contact card, area code, or local worker sessions), integration support with their existing SMS/RCS or voice agent systems, and a reliable way to scale their volume over time. We built Chert to be an infrastructure layer for businesses to handle iMessage conversations at scale. Businesses can use our API to send and receive iMessages programmatically, route replies to humans or agents, and integrate conversations into the systems they already use. To maintain stability across both outbound and inbound use cases, we built phone line health checks and SMS/RCS fallback systems. We also integrate with existing SMS/RCS systems, voice agents, CRMs such as Salesforce, HubSpot, and Attio, and tools like Slack. Finally, we let businesses reliably scale from a few test lines to hundreds of lines with automated line provisioning and a usage-based pricing structure. We’re working with companies doing conversational messaging in DTC, sports programs, property management, and home services at the scale of hundreds of lines. We’d love to hear your thoughts on this and other similar verticals where iMessage could be useful. All comments welcome!

RU

Runtm

Hey HN, We're Gus and Carlos from Runtime (https://runtm.com). We're building infra that lets your whole team (including non-engineers) ship with Claude Code, Codex, and other agents without engineering having to handhold every session. After Mentum (YC S21) was acquired, I personally shipped 4 full-stack products in 3 months using coding agents. When I tried to roll the same workflow out to the rest of the team, it fell apart: Most PRs were unmergeable slop - Every repo required an engineer doing one-off local setup. - Skills and context lived in one person's head. - There was no safe way for a PM to touch a real codebase without risking a bad deploy or a secrets leak. Carlos comes from building agentic reconciliation systems at Modern Treasury and had a similar experience when letting his support team use devin. We ended up building internal background agent infra but it quickly became a nightmare to mantain and develop. We built Runtime so you don't have to do this kind of thing. Runtime work like as follows. Engineering defines the context once: system instructions, skills, and scoped integrations installable via CLI, mise, npm, or any package manager. Then Runtime snapshots your full running environment including multi-service Docker Compose setups, Kafka, Redis, seeded DBs, so it comes up in milliseconds with every server already running. We orchestrate across sandbox providers like E2B, Daytona, EC2 or self-hosted K8s depending on your setup. Secrets are injected through our managed proxy so they never touch the agent directly, and guardrails run at the infrastructure level: command allow/deny lists, network egress controls, and RBAC scoped per human and per agent. Every session also gets a shareable preview URL, so internal builds go from sandbox to the rest of the team without needing production access. Runtime works with whichever agent your team already uses: Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, Copilot, Gemini, Devin. You can trigger sandboxes from our web app, CLI, Slack, Linear, GitHub, or API. One of our customers built an on-call inspector that wires PagerDuty, Sentry, and their repo so when an alert fires, the agent finds the cause and opens a PR with a unit test before anyone gets paged. Another runs a finance agent in a private Slack channel pulling from Stripe, NetSuite, and Snowflake to run reconciliations in minutes with source rows attached. A fintech unicorn and several YC scaleups are live on Runtime, including a few teams who had built similar infrastructure internally and handed it to us to take over. The core is open source at https://github.com/runtm-ai/runtm. Hosted version is live at https://app.runtm.com, free tier included. We're charging a flat platform fee plus compute, no token markup. Check our demo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLwj__aEEh4 We'd love to hear how you're thinking about the infra for letting more people across your org use coding agents without creating chaos!

S(

Superlog (YC P26)

Hey HN, we’re Nico and Arseniy, co-founders of Superlog (https://superlog.sh). We're building a self-installing, self healing observability tool meant not to be opened. It has a wizard that daily sets up proper logging and an agent that investigates errors and opens PRs. Super short demo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFhU9Mk247M. In our earlier startups, we tried Sentry, Datadog, Grafana, Dash0, and nothing was good enough. Proper telemetry and alerting still requires a ton of manual setup. We struggled with adding good logs, so debugging was tough, especially as codebases grow at a faster pace. Meanwhile, the Datadog/Dash0 bill kept climbing, and we still spent engineering hours to learn, configure, and maintain our observability tooling. With Sentry, we found ourselves flooded by a stream of alerts into our Slack channel, most were duplicates or lacked context, so alert fatigue/constant interrupts were a real pain. The #ops notification is consistently the worst feeling on a Saturday morning We’ve seen too many times servers run out of memory and disk, and three AWS metrics giving us three different values. Half of the graphs on dashboards are normally empty or outdated, and manually clicking through UIs, especially when the team is small, seems like a huge waste of time. At some point we realized that solving this problem would be more valuable than the things we had been working on, and we had the expertise to do it, since Arseniy had spent years at Datadog, getting paged during the night to debug production incidents. So we decided to build a platform that would just work: agent-first, MCP-native, zero-setup. Here’s how Superlog works: we have a wizard that scans your repo, and automatically instruments it with well-structured logs, traces and metrics via OpenTelemetry. We make sure to highlight main failure modes, endpoint performance, usage per tenant, and LLM/upstream cost (by callsite, tenant and model). Errors get fingerprinted and grouped into incidents, so you see one issue, not a thousand duplicates. When you get a notification from Superlog, you see a clear failure summary, its inferred severity and impact upfront. Then the agent investigates and tries to solve the issue. If it has enough context, it produces a concise and tested PR. If it doesn't, it posts its findings for the investigating team, and automatically pulls in the engineers that could contribute more context based on documentation, previous investigations and Slack threads. Either way the output is one clean PR per incident, posted in Slack, that you can merge, ignore, or open as a Claude Code session and modify. Three things we think are different from other observability vendors: (1) We solve the setup pain. The wizard will instrument everything with native OTel SDKs, respecting the semantic conventions, with proper service and environment tagging. We’re also working on native automatic dashboards and alerts, so that you can see what’s going on in a glance and don’t miss subtle failure modes. (2) Our telemetry doesn’t decay. The wizard runs daily, and keeps adding logs, alerts and dashboards where it’s needed. You don't have to remember to instrument new features. The next time something breaks, the data you need to debug it is already there. (3) Our goal is to solve alert fatigue. We use agents to merge similar errors and refine the summaries, giving you relevant information upfront. We have a custom evaluation setup that makes sure that our summaries are dense and correct, and severity and impact is on point. We also give you confidence scores for every LLM-enhanced metric so that wrong guesses don’t get boosted. Important: superlog telemetry is vendor-neutral, so you keep all the logs/metrics/traces we install. Pricing is on the site. We're early, so expect rough edges and please tell us when you find them. You can try it at https://superlog.sh. We'd love to hear what you're using today, what's broken about it, and whether the "one mergeable PR per incident" model sounds useful or terrifying. Especially keen to hear from folks running integration-heavy products, anyone who's rolled their own observability, and anyone who has tried Sentry / Datadog MCPs and given up. Comments and feedback welcome!

AN

Andonlabs

Hey HN! I'm Lukas from Andon Labs. We let AIs run companies without humans in the loop and report to the public on what can go wrong. Previously, we've done experiments in retail (vending machines, stores, and cafes), but we just launched one in the media sector. We gave four AI agents all the tools they need to both broadcast radio shows live and handle all the business side of running a media company. The agents' revenue is so far terrible (you can try to strike a sponsor deal with them if you want!), but their shows are at times hilarious. You can listen to them at andon.fm, I hope you enjoy this!

HC

Headless Cloud Security

The cloud security company I work for, Sysdig, launched “Headless Cloud Security” last week. The short version: as attacks get faster and more automated, security tooling is going to need to evolve beyond dashboards and humans clicking through workflows all day. We’ve already seen “headless” models emerge in other categories, and engineering teams are rapidly adopting agentic and CLI-first workflows with tools like Claude Code, Cursor, and MCP servers. Security teams, historically, tend to lag engineering adoption curves by 6–18 months, but I don’t think that gap will hold much longer. The idea behind headless security is that security capabilities should be consumable programmatically — through APIs, AI agents, IDEs, CI/CD pipelines, and automated workflows — not just through a UI. This post covers it in more detail: https://www.sysdig.com/learn-cloud-native/what-is-headless-c... Curious whether others here are seeing similar shifts inside their orgs, especially around AI-assisted development and security operations.

VO

Voker

Hey HN, we're Alex and Tyler, co-founders of Voker.ai (https://voker.ai/), an agent analytics platform for AI product teams. Voker gives full visibility into what users are asking of your agents, and whether your agents are delivering, without having to dig through logs. Our main product is a lightweight SDK that is LLM stack agnostic and purpose-built for agent products. (https://app.voker.ai/docs) Agent Engineers and AI product teams don’t have the right level of visibility into agent performance in production, which results in bad user experiences, churn, and hundreds of hours wasted with spot checks to find and debug issues with agent configurations. Demo: https://www.tella.tv/video/vid_cmoukcsk1000i07jgb4j65u67/vie... We recently conducted a survey of YC Founders and 90%+ of respondents said that the only way they know if their Agents are failing users in production is by hearing complaints from customers. They push a prompt change hoping that it fixes the problem and doesn’t break something somewhere else, and the cycle repeats. We saw tons of observability and evals products popping up to try to address these problems, but we still felt like something was missing in the agent monitoring stack. Obs is good for individual trace debugging but is only accessible to engineers. Evals are good for testing known issues, but don't give insights into trends that teams don’t expect, so engineers are always playing catch up. Traditional product analytics tools do a good job tracking clicks and pageviews across your product surface but weren’t built ground up for agent products. Knowing what users want out of agents, and whether the agent delivered requires specific conversational intelligence / unstructured data processing techniques. We came up with the agent analytics primitives of Intents, Corrections, and Resolutions to describe something pretty much all conversational agents had in common: a user will always come to an agent with an intent, the user might have to correct this agent on the way to getting their intent resolved, and hopefully every intent a user has is eventually resolved by the agent. Voker processes LLM calls by automatically annotating individual conversations and picking out user intent and corrections. Voker takes these and uses LLMs and hierarchical text classification to create dynamic categories that give higher level insights so you don’t have to read individual conversations to know what are the main usage patterns across your users. The most common substitute solution we’ve seen is uploading obs logs to Claude or ChatGPT and asking for summary insights. There are a few problems with this - mainly that LLMs aren’t good at math or data science, so you don’t get accurate or consistent statistics. Its highly likely that the LLM overfits to some insights and underfits to others. The LLM isn’t programmatically reading and classifying each individual session or interaction. This is why we don’t use LLMs for any of our core data engineering (processing events, calculating statistics) so the analytics we produce are consistent, reproducible, and accurate. We have a publicly available, lightweight SDK that wraps LLM calls to OpenAI, Anthropic and Gemini in Python and Typescript. Voker handles the data engineering to turn raw data into usable analytics primitives and higher level insights. Free tier: 2,000 events / mo, requires email signup. Paid plans start at $80/mo with a 30 day free trial. We'd love to hear how you're currently detecting trends, and if you try Voker, tell us what part of our analysis is valuable, and what still feels missing. Thanks for reading, and we’re looking forward to your thoughts in the comments!

AI

Agentic interface for mainframes and COBOL

Hi HN, we’re Sai and Aayush, and we’re building Hypercubic (https://www.hypercubic.ai/), bringing AI tools to the mainframe and COBOL world. (We did a Launch HN last year: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45877517.) Today we’re launching Hopper, an agentic development environment for mainframes. You can download it here: https://www.hypercubic.ai/hopper, and you can also request access and immediately get a mainframe user account to play with. There's also a video runthrough at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q81L5DcfBvE. Mainframes still run a surprising amount of critical infrastructure: banking, payments, insurance, airlines, government programs, logistics, and core operations at large institutions. Many of these systems are decades old, but they continue to process enormous transaction volumes because they are reliable, secure, and deeply embedded into business operations. A lot of that software is written in COBOL and runs on IBM z/OS. The development environment looks very different from modern cloud or Unix-style development. Instead of GitHub, shell commands, package managers, and CI pipelines, developers often work through TN3270 terminal sessions, ISPF panels, partitioned datasets, JCL, JES queues, spool output, return codes, VSAM files, CICS transactions, and shop-specific conventions. TN3270 is the terminal interface used to interact with many IBM mainframe systems. ISPF is the menu and panel system developers use inside that terminal to browse datasets, edit source, submit jobs, and inspect output. It is powerful and reliable, but it was designed for expert humans navigating screens, function keys, and fixed-width workflows, not AI agents. A simple COBOL change might require finding the right source member, checking copybooks, locating compile JCL, submitting a job, reading JES/SYSPRINT output, interpreting condition codes, patching fixed-width source, and resubmitting. Much of this work is so well-defined and repetitive that it's a good fit for agentic AI. To get that working, however, a chatbot next to a terminal is not enough. The agent needs to operate inside the mainframe environment. Hopper combines three things: (1) A real TN3270 terminal, (2) Mainframe-aware panels for datasets, members, jobs, and spool output, and (3) An AI agent that can operate across those z/OS surfaces. For example, here is a tiny version of the kind of thing Hopper can help debug: COBOL: IDENTIFICATION DIVISION. PROGRAM-ID. PAYCALC. DATA DIVISION. WORKING-STORAGE SECTION. 01 CUSTOMER-BALANCE PIC 9(7)V99. PROCEDURE DIVISION. ADD 100.00 TO CUSTOMER-BALNCE DISPLAY "UPDATED BALANCE: " CUSTOMER-BALANCE STOP RUN. JCL: //PAYCOMP JOB (ACCT),'COMPILE',CLASS=A,MSGCLASS=X //COBOL EXEC IGYWCL [//COBOL.SYSIN](https://cobol.sysin/) DD DSN=USER1.APP.COBOL(PAYCALC),DISP=SHR [//LKED.SYSLMOD](https://lked.syslmod/) DD DSN=USER1.APP.LOAD(PAYCALC),DISP=SHR A human would submit this job, inspect JES output, open `SYSPRINT`, find the undefined `CUSTOMER-BALNCE`, map it back to the source, patch the member, and resubmit. Hopper is designed to let an agent operate through that same loop autonomously. Hopper is not trying to hide the mainframe behind a generic abstraction, and it's not a chatbot. The design principle is simple: preserve the fidelity of the mainframe environment, but make it accessible to AI agents. Sensitive operations require approval, and the terminal remains visible at all times. Once agents can operate inside the mainframe environment, new workflows become possible: faster job debugging, automated documentation, safer code changes, test generation, migration planning, traffic replay, and modernization verification. We’re curious to hear your thoughts! especially from anyone who has worked with mainframes, COBOL or has done legacy enterprise modernization.