The flight deck for agentic development
Your agents write code faster than ever. What your product actually does, in which version, for whom and at what price - nobody knows any more. Survol keeps that map, and it stays current because it is wired to what ships.
Works with the agent and the repository you already use. Zero margin on AI.
What nobody else does
Every tool on the market assumes the code is written by agents. In a real company it is written by agents and by humans, often on the same feature, in the same week.
Argument #1
Same life cycle, same record, same tracking, same path to production. A version written by hand costs zero tokens and counts exactly the same. The unit of truth is the version, not the author.
A branch pushed directly, a hotfix on a Friday night: Survol sees it and offers to attach it. Never a snitching tone - that is a condition of adoption, not a courtesy.
Your organisation's technical constraints are injected into every agent session. When the agent argues against one, it opens a product decision - and a human settles it.
Who is it for?
A leader, a developer and someone with no engineering team are not buying the same thing. Pick your way in.
The problem nobody is solving
Writing the spec before the code has become a standard - Spec Kit, Kiro, and a good share of your own teams already do it. Good: that argument is won, and not by us. What remains is what nobody has solved.
What happens today
The spec gets written, the agent reads it, the feature ships - and the file stays in a folder nobody opens again. Three months later it describes a product that no longer exists. To know what your application does, you have to read the code.
What Survol makes of it
It is versioned, attached to a feature that has a status, a history, a cost, an owner and traced decisions. It stays current because it is wired to execution : when a version reaches production, the map knows.
A spec file describes an intention at a point in time. A functional map describes a product over time. They look alike on day one and have nothing in common a quarter later.
The proof
Everyone can tell you what your AI cost last month. Nobody can tell you what it delivered. The difference is not counting tokens: it is knowing which feature to attach them to, and what that feature was supposed to produce.
"Reduce abandoned carts." The versions serving that goal are attached to it, and each can carry a promise: what it should produce, how we will know, and who will judge.
Thirty days after release, the appointed judge rules: met, partly met, not met - or impossible to tell, the only state that prevents comfortable conclusions.
AI spend split between what met its goal and what did not. That number exists nowhere else, and no invoice will ever give it to you.
Where Survol sits
Your coding agent is your engine. Your repository is your repository. Survol replaces neither and competes with neither: it holds the layer that neither of them holds.
"We already have Agent HQ / Kiro / Cursor" - our one-minute answerIt runs on your developers' machines, on your own plan. The code never leaves your side, and we do not take a cent on the AI.
Branches, merge requests, reviews, CI: nothing changes in your developers' habits. Survol reads and writes what it needs, where it already is.
The code, the repositories, the accounts and the plans are yours. Survol supervises, owns nothing. Reversibility is not a clause: it is the architecture.
Pricing
A middleman taking a margin on AI is a middleman you will try to cut out. By charging only for the tool, we have no interest in you consuming more - which makes the opposite promise credible.
€0
1 product, 1 user, 30 days of history.
€29 / user / month
Unlimited products and users, goals and verdicts, decisions, token tracking, previews, automatic resume.
Running a large engineering team? Contact us for a custom quote, tailored to your organisation.
Request a quoteEnterprise beta
Teams of 5 to 100 people already using a coding agent and finding they have lost track of what it produces.
As of today Survol has no paying customer and has not been proven at a third party: that is exactly what this beta is meant to settle.
A few euros a month fund nothing - they filter. A free beta attracts curious people who never open it twice; a symbolic amount is only paid by teams seriously considering the tool. It is the only honest filter we have.
