Write agent logic, and skip the plumbing. Give AI agents reliable access to 2,000+ APIs with retries, idempotency, policy enforcement, and durable state.
Replies
Best
the npx approach is the right call - being able to drop this into an existing agent setup without architectural rewrites is exactly how this kind of tooling should work. durable state across API calls is the piece most CLI tools get completely wrong. curious how conflict resolution works when two agents are hitting the same endpoint concurrently - that's usually where state layers fall apart in practice
@galdayan Hey Gal, I think we didn't convey the messaging properly. The thing is, Swytchcode CLI helps agents write the integration code inside your project via MCP and rules. The generated integration code then calls the CLI to fetch data from the API (and all the rules are honored). So in a way, we are just a library that makes the API request for your project. Hence, the conflict doesn't appear.
Would be happy to show a demo and get feedback from you
@kritikasinghania its a real pain point for sure. Feel free to try out and give us feedback
Report
The part I like here is treating execution as a separate reliability layer, not as prompt quality. In production agent work, retries, auth, idempotency, and policy are where the expensive failures hide.
Standardizing this layer of the stack for agents looks very promising. There is so much unseen functionality behind the scenes of these types of integrations that can become a huge challenge to manage.
Which integrations are you seeing in practice the most?
Congrats on the launch. The direction makes sense: execution failures are usually boring plumbing until one creates a real business side effect.
I am curious about the multi-tenant edge. When the same agent pattern runs across different customer workspaces, do policies and credentials live per workspace, per user, or in the manifest?
@blah_mad It's as simple as a typical node project. We store all the information inside the ".swytchcode" folder. Whenever you ship the project, you ship the ".swytchcode" folder. Also, similar to the npm install command, we have the "swytchcode bootstrap" command so that we ship only the metadata (to reduce the overall package size).
Report
@chilarai Got it, so the boundary is the project config. For agency/client deployments, would you expect one .swytchcode folder per customer workspace, or a shared manifest with env-specific credentials and policies?
@blah_mad the folder contains integration specs, boundaries and policies. But it doesn't contain env. They are managed as it is... The standard security practices.
Would love to discuss, showcase and get your feedback as well.
@blah_mad policies live in the manifest, credentials are managed by user either locally or through a vault.
Report
@aditya_rohit That split makes sense. For client deployments, I’d want the manifest to declare allowed actions, and the local/vault layer to bind credentials per workspace. Do you expose that mapping in the run log, or is it mostly config state today?
@blah_mad the way it works is you configure your manifest, policies,tooling files let it run and you will see this in the audit trail.
Report
Good. If the audit trail shows manifest version, policy file, credential binding, and tool result in one place, that becomes much easier to review across client installs. Does that trail export as a run artifact, or mostly live inside the local project?
Report
💡 Bright idea
This is a strong framing: the agent is not the hard part, reliable execution is. In B2B workflows, policy enforcement often needs business context, not just API/schema context. Can Swytchcode scope policies by role or risk level, for example allowing an agent to update HubSpot freely but requiring approval before sending customer-facing messages or changing billing data?
@rahulbhavsar Yes this is a brilliant idea. Today we are implementing the policies for individual methods and libraries. This should be up in our next release.
Do give the CLI a try and would love more such feedback
Report
@chilarai That's exciting to hear — policy enforcement at the method/library level is exactly the kind of granularity that makes AI agents actually deployable in enterprise environments. Will definitely give the CLI a try. One thing I'd love to see: visibility into which policies fired during a run, not just pass/fail. Audit trails matter a lot when you're putting AI agents in front of business workflows.
"The agent wasn't the problem, the execution layer had zero protection" is so true. I build voice agents that call tools mid-conversation, and the failures are almost never the model, they're retries firing twice or an API quietly changing its schema. Curious how you handle auth across 2,000+ APIs when the agent is acting on behalf of different end users, do you manage per-user OAuth tokens and refresh, or is it mostly single-account keys for now?
@david_marko Thanks, David. It's a ".swytchcode" config per project that sits inside the root of the project folder. The folder contains all the information about the integration. Rest assured, the credentials still stay in the .env file or whatever config you have today.
Replies
the npx approach is the right call - being able to drop this into an existing agent setup without architectural rewrites is exactly how this kind of tooling should work. durable state across API calls is the piece most CLI tools get completely wrong. curious how conflict resolution works when two agents are hitting the same endpoint concurrently - that's usually where state layers fall apart in practice
Swytchcode
@galdayan Hey Gal, I think we didn't convey the messaging properly. The thing is, Swytchcode CLI helps agents write the integration code inside your project via MCP and rules. The generated integration code then calls the CLI to fetch data from the API (and all the rules are honored). So in a way, we are just a library that makes the API request for your project. Hence, the conflict doesn't appear.
Would be happy to show a demo and get feedback from you
@chilarai would you mind sharing a demo video?
Swytchcode
@galdayan Sure, I'll do. Sending a connection on Linkedin
Kaily
that’s a real pain point. awesome to see this evolution of the product
Swytchcode
@kritikasinghania its a real pain point for sure. Feel free to try out and give us feedback
The part I like here is treating execution as a separate reliability layer, not as prompt quality. In production agent work, retries, auth, idempotency, and policy are where the expensive failures hide.
Swytchcode
@krekeltronics Thanks a lot ❤️ really appreciate it!
Would love if you could try it out sometime and share your feedback, it would genuinely help us improve 🚀
Swytchcode
@krekeltronics Absolutely true, Patrick. Thanks for your thoughts.
Would really love to catchup and understand what you are building.
350+ E-Commerce Tools Database
Standardizing this layer of the stack for agents looks very promising. There is so much unseen functionality behind the scenes of these types of integrations that can become a huge challenge to manage.
Which integrations are you seeing in practice the most?
Congrats on the relaunch!
Swytchcode
@anthony_latona Thanks for the kind words. Today we see most integrations around fintech apis and deployment apis
WriteMyPRD
Swytchcode
@suhasmotwani thanks Suhas
Swytchcode
@suhasmotwani thanks a lot, Suhas. Do give it a try
ReplyMind
Big step forward 🚀 Swytchcode looks like a powerful way to simplify dev workflows. Wishing the team huge success!
Swytchcode
@moon10 Thank you so much! ❤️ Really appreciate the kind words and support. If you get a chance to try Swytchcode, we'd love to hear your feedback. 🚀
ZapDigits
This is going to be a game changer for devs work with tons of integrations. Congratulations with the launch guys. I will always support you.
Swytchcode
@malithmcrdev Thank you, Malith, for your support.
Congrats on the launch. The direction makes sense: execution failures are usually boring plumbing until one creates a real business side effect.
I am curious about the multi-tenant edge. When the same agent pattern runs across different customer workspaces, do policies and credentials live per workspace, per user, or in the manifest?
Swytchcode
@blah_mad It's as simple as a typical node project. We store all the information inside the ".swytchcode" folder. Whenever you ship the project, you ship the ".swytchcode" folder.
Also, similar to the npm install command, we have the "swytchcode bootstrap" command so that we ship only the metadata (to reduce the overall package size).
@chilarai Got it, so the boundary is the project config. For agency/client deployments, would you expect one .swytchcode folder per customer workspace, or a shared manifest with env-specific credentials and policies?
Swytchcode
@blah_mad the folder contains integration specs, boundaries and policies. But it doesn't contain env. They are managed as it is... The standard security practices.
Would love to discuss, showcase and get your feedback as well.
Will send you a LinkedIn request.
Swytchcode
@blah_mad policies live in the manifest, credentials are managed by user either locally or through a vault.
@aditya_rohit That split makes sense. For client deployments, I’d want the manifest to declare allowed actions, and the local/vault layer to bind credentials per workspace. Do you expose that mapping in the run log, or is it mostly config state today?
Swytchcode
@blah_mad the way it works is you configure your manifest, policies,tooling files let it run and you will see this in the audit trail.
Good. If the audit trail shows manifest version, policy file, credential binding, and tool result in one place, that becomes much easier to review across client installs. Does that trail export as a run artifact, or mostly live inside the local project?
This is a strong framing: the agent is not the hard part, reliable execution is. In B2B workflows, policy enforcement often needs business context, not just API/schema context. Can Swytchcode scope policies by role or risk level, for example allowing an agent to update HubSpot freely but requiring approval before sending customer-facing messages or changing billing data?
Swytchcode
@rahulbhavsar Yes this is a brilliant idea. Today we are implementing the policies for individual methods and libraries. This should be up in our next release.
Do give the CLI a try and would love more such feedback
@chilarai That's exciting to hear — policy enforcement at the method/library level is exactly the kind of granularity that makes AI agents actually deployable in enterprise environments. Will definitely give the CLI a try. One thing I'd love to see: visibility into which policies fired during a run, not just pass/fail. Audit trails matter a lot when you're putting AI agents in front of business workflows.
Swytchcode
@rahulbhavsar Yes. Would love to talk more and explore your feedback. Sending a linkedin request
@chilarai Thanks Chilarai. Happy to connect!
"The agent wasn't the problem, the execution layer had zero protection" is so true. I build voice agents that call tools mid-conversation, and the failures are almost never the model, they're retries firing twice or an API quietly changing its schema. Curious how you handle auth across 2,000+ APIs when the agent is acting on behalf of different end users, do you manage per-user OAuth tokens and refresh, or is it mostly single-account keys for now?
Swytchcode
@david_marko Thanks, David. It's a ".swytchcode" config per project that sits inside the root of the project folder. The folder contains all the information about the integration. Rest assured, the credentials still stay in the .env file or whatever config you have today.