Launching today
Releasing fast shouldn’t mean breaking things. As your product grows, Ogoron takes over your QA process end‑to‑end. It understands your product, generates and maintains tests, and continuously validates every change - replacing a systems analyst, test analyst, and QA engineer. Get predictable releases, fewer bugs in production, and full coverage without manual effort. Ship faster. Stay in control. Break nothing
Free Options
Launch Team / Built With
Ogoron
bold claim. curious where this breaks - QA automation typically hits hard exceptions fast when scope expands. what's the failure recovery model?
Ogoron
@mykola_kondratiuk That is a very fair question. Hard exceptions are a real limit for QA automation, especially as scope expands.
Our view is fairly pragmatic: the boundary is reached when the correct behavior cannot be reliably reconstructed from the available artifacts – code, tests, specs, documentation, and the behavior of the product itself.
So our recovery model is to recover automatically where the system can establish a high-confidence truth, and surface ambiguity when it cannot. In practice, that means Ogoron can adapt a lot of standard cases on its own, but in genuinely disputed or under-specified situations it asks the user to resolve them explicitly rather than pretending certainty.
A big part of the product is expanding that high-confidence zone over time – from general web patterns to increasingly domain-specific behaviors
Pragmatic is the right call. Hard exceptions that block releases are worse than automation gaps - especially when you are scaling coverage fast. The key is knowing which ones actually matter.
I honestly don’t really get it, but no matter how much I look at TDD, I can’t seem to understand it. Should it be done before the code review stage, or after code review, just before the final product check?
Ogoron
@adamspong Thanks for the question. To clarify, Ogoron is not about strict TDD in the classic sense. It is an automated QA system that generates, maintains, and runs tests as the product evolves.
In most workflows, that fits before code review: when a branch is ready, tests are refreshed, smoke checks run on pushes, and the broader suite can run before review or merge
We had a rather vivid discussion in the team on how to best run Ogoron trials on Product Hunt. The result is that we provide two modes:
- Bring Your Own Key. Use your own OpenAI API key during the trial, without limitations.
- Use an Ogoron-managed OpenAI API key during the trial. This has somewhat limited functionality but hopefully lets understant the product utility.
I am eager to hear the pros and cons of these approaches from the Product Hunt community
Time Tracking for Jira by Standuply
@nick_mikhailovsky1 BYOK makes sense for power users, but I’d optimize for a frictionless first experience with a managed key and move people to BYOK after they see value.
Does it work with Cypress instead of Playwright for UI tests? Our team has invested heavily in Cypress and would prefer not to rewrite everything.
@lordice222_james James, please drop me a email at nickm@ogoron.com. We had Cypress in our product map, but not immediately. If you are ready to start immediately using ogoron if we suppurt Cypress, we can move Cypress up in the backlog
Hi! How does it integrate with version control systems like Git? Can it create pull requests with suggested fixes?
If a product replaces a system analyst and a QA engineer, can it handle complex business cases that are not visible in the code or UI?