Hey guys, I'm Arshad. I build Quarterback at Velora. The thing that started this: I kept noticing that my coding agent wasn't wrong so much as incomplete. The code compiled. Tests passed. The diff looked fine. And the backend field existed while the frontend never sent it. I'd catch it three commits later. That's not a model problem. It's a missing layer. The agent interprets the task, implements its interpretation, then reviews its own interpretation and reports success. Nobody independently checks whether the original job got done. Quarterback is that check. Your request becomes an explicit task contract goal, constraints, acceptance criteria, verification plan. Your existing agent does the work (Claude Code, Cursor, Codex, whatever you already run). Then a separate layer verifies the result against the contract: deterministic evidence first tests, types, diff scope, schema checks and model judgment only where the question is genuinely semantic. The metric I care about is human interventions per accepted task. Every message where you correct, clarify, redirect or verify the agent. Accepted matters a system that stops asking questions while shipping bad results hasn't improved. I'm not going to post a number today. I've seen enough vendor benchmarks in this category to know how they're made, and I'd rather publish real cohort data with the methodology attached than a chart I made up. That's coming. What I need right now is 10–20 developers who use a coding agent daily on a real repo. We measure your baseline, then run the same work through Quarterback, and you see the delta on your own tasks. Anonymized metrics only. Two questions I'd genuinely like answered in the comments: What's the last thing your agent said it finished that it hadn't? What do you always check yourself before trusting "done"? I'll be here all day.

Quarterback

Automate your AI manager pipeline for agentic workflows

Automate your AI manager pipeline for agentic workflows