66% “almost right, but not quite” — the #1 developer frustration of 2025 (SO)

Your AI writes the code. You still own the one thing it can’t: saying what correct means.

plumb shows your code does what you said — right where “said” can be made precise. An independent oracle derives intent from your signature and docstring, asks once, then freezes the verdict as reproducible evidence.

agetra radar · the release-owner’s view futur · preview Phase 2, gated to the waitlist
Diligence Coverage 58% of in-scope critical logic
conforming holds 58% diverging broken 3% blind unknown 31% waived excused · owned 8%

Under a reversed burden of proof, “unknown” is your weakest position. This is the same evidence the CLI above produces — distilled for the people who answer for the release.

The mechanism · not “AI checks AI”

The oracle reads your intent, never your code. It asks once.

In 2026, the first reader of your code is an agent — and the one thing it can’t do is decide what correct means. That line stays human. plumb is where it’s drawn.

01
reads your intent

From the signature + docstring — the oracle never sees the body. Your code stays local.

02
asks once

No silent default. Where your intent leaves room, it surfaces the assumption — agreement among models isn’t correctness — and you ratify it once. The one call it can’t make for you.

03
then it’s CPU

After ratify, the verdict is deterministic, re-runnable — no model in the loop.

The evidence · what every check leaves behind

A diligence record, designed to be signed two ways — native on every export.

It lands in .plumb/, next to your code — only a digest ever crosses the wire. Diligence you can show later, not just claim.

What it was meant to do futur · preview illustrative example

“mg dose = weight_kg × mg_per_kg, clamped to [0, max_single_dose]”

ratified by m.weber@mediapp · qualified: medical-safety-review · v3
▲ held to verified against ▼
Notary of Independence

The standard was derived without sight of the code — 3 independent models, frozen.

digest a1b2c3 · DSSE
Witness of Diligence

We checked code 9f2c… against this standard before the v2.4 release.

signed · OIDC · 14:02 UTC
The boundary

Where the claim begins and ends.

is
an independent verification layer — shows code does what you said, on pure logic
is
a diligence record — contemporaneous, attributable, reproducible
is not
another LLM opinion — “AI checking AI”
is not
a bug-finder, or a promise of correctness
is not
a judge of whether what you said is right — that stays yours
For the craftsman

Join the waitlist

We’ll tell you when the plumb-bob hangs true. Email only.

For the one who answers for the release

I have a case

Role · sector · codebase language · regulated · urgency. No free text.

Lead-EngArchitectCISOAuditor

From 9 December 2026 the EU Product Liability Directive treats software as a product — on complex systems the burden of proof can shift to the maker. “We were careful” will need to be shown, not said.