Rova AI
Autonomous, goal-driven testing for web & mobile apps
213 followers
Autonomous, goal-driven testing for web & mobile apps
213 followers
Rova AI explores your web and mobile apps, validates real user workflows, adapts to UI changes, and generates clear reports, without writing test scripts. Simply tag ROVA on your issue tickets like Jira, Linear etc, and ROVA does the magic of testing the ticket and reporting the feedback.
Rova AI
RiteKit Company Logo API
@azscandium This hits a real pain point. The shift from brittle selector-based automation to outcome-driven testing is exactly what teams need as apps change faster. Curious how Rova handles complex user journeys that require contextual decisions—does it learn expected vs unexpected outcomes, or does that require initial configuration. Oh! And see my PH general category discussion today - I think you would love what I'm doing for us guys!
Rova AI
@osakasaul Really appreciate this thoughtful note, you captured exactly why we’re building Rova.
On complex, contextual journeys: Rova starts from a goal and explores paths to reach it, but it doesn’t brute-force flows. We combine an understanding of the UI with learned patterns of “successful” vs “failed” states. There’s an optional initial configuration phase where you define key goals, constraints, and what “good” looks like for your product, and from there Rova continuously refines its expectations as it sees more runs and edge cases across releases.
We’re still pushing this a lot further (especially for deeply branching, stateful workflows), so conversations like this are super helpful. Also saw your PH discussion, would love to jam on how builders like us can help each other ship with more confidence.
Congratulations on the launch! I was curious, how do you handle multi step flows with authentication like does it manage session state across or does each test start fresh?
Rova AI
@prateek_kumar28 Thanks so much, really appreciate it!
Great question. For multi‑step flows with authentication, Rova can work in two ways:
- For most regression suites, each test starts from a clean state. Rova will handle the full auth flow (login, OTP, etc.) as part of the goal so you’re not accidentally depending on a “dirty” session.
- For longer or more complex journeys, we support preserving session state across a scenario, so Rova can chain multiple goals within the same authenticated context while still isolating runs from each other.
Under the hood, we track cookies/tokens and other relevant state per run, so you get realistic, end‑to‑end coverage without flaky cross‑test leakage. If you have a specific auth setup (SSO, magic links, JWTs, etc.), happy to share how we’d plug into that as well.
Mailwarm
Most automation tools end up creating more maintenance work than they solve, especially with frequent UI changes. I love the the idea of focusing on outcomes instead of scripts. Very interested in seeing how this evolves.
Rova AI
@thamibenjelloun Thank you so much for this!
You’ve nailed exactly the pain we set out to solve — brittle, selector-based automation that breaks with every UI tweak. We’ve actually been there before ourselves: we previously built an automation tool that still left a ton of maintenance burden on QA teams. All of those hard-learned lessons are what pushed us toward this goal-based, outcome-focused approach with Rova.
We’re still early and pushing this a lot further, especially around complex, multi-step flows, so feedback from folks who’ve felt this pain means a lot. If you’re open to it, I’d love to learn more about your current setup and where existing tools have fallen short for you.
Congrats on the launch. Japan-based founder here.
One Japan-specific thought: QA-heavy teams here can be conservative about autonomous testing, so the strongest local angle may not be “replace QA”, but “reduce repetitive regression checks while keeping human review.”
If you ever localize for Japan, I’d also show concrete auth / multi-step form / mobile regression examples rather than only generic autonomous-testing flows.
Rova AI
@wakuta thank you, and I really appreciate the Japan-specific context.
That framing makes a lot of sense. We are not trying to “replace QA” so much as take the repetitive, regression-style checks off their plate so they can focus on higher value, exploratory work. We are more positioned as augmenting QA instead of automating them away.
If you are open to sharing more about how QA teams operate in your ecosystem (tools, review culture, sign off processes, and so on), I would love to learn from your experience as we shape our roadmap.
@azscandium Thanks, Abdulazeez. Yes, the key issue I see in Japan is usually not “AI vs QA,” but risk ownership: teams want clear evidence, reproducible steps, review gates, and confidence that automation will not create extra review burden.
I’m happy to keep this async. If you later test Japan-facing auth, forms, or mobile regression flows, I can run a focused paid Japanese QA/LQA pass and return concrete screenshots, repro steps, and priority findings.