Launching today
PromiseProof
AI can fix code. It shouldn't certify itself.
2 followers
AI can fix code. It shouldn't certify itself.
2 followers
PromiseProof shows a safer way to use coding agents. GPT-5.6 investigates a broken product promise, Codex proposes a constrained repair and a human approves the exact patch. Neither model can award PASS, the unchanged deterministic verifier does. Try it in your browser, tamper with the evidence, reproduce a sealed report or run the same gate in CI.
Hey Product Hunt 👋
I built PromiseProof during OpenAI Build Week because I kept returning to one uncomfortable question: when an AI agent repairs code, who decides that the repair is actually correct?
In PromiseProof, GPT-5.6 investigates a sanitized evidence dossier and selects one bounded diagnostic replay. Codex proposes a constrained source patch in isolation. I review and approve the exact diff. Then the same unchanged deterministic test that caught the broken promise decides PASS or FAIL and neither model can grade its own work.
The current release proves the workflow on an 'off means off' personalization contract, with a browser verifier, CLI, and GitHub Action.
I would especially appreciate feedback from people building coding agents or working in QA, privacy, reliability and CI.