Framer AI AgentsDesign and publish professional sites with AI
One AI-powered workspace where your projects, conversations, reviews, and creative work stay connected. Every tool switch interrupts creative thinking, scatters context, and adds unnecessary cognitive load. RunEvr is built to keep your entire creative workflow in one place, helping teams stay focused, collaborate naturally, and create without losing momentum.
creative work is messy in a way regular pm tools struggle with - feedback like 'make it pop more' or 'not quite the right vibe' doesn't map to a clean task/status update. how does the agentic layer here handle that kind of subjective revision request versus a normal checklist item, or is it still mostly structured around trackable tasks under the hood?
RunEvr
@omri_ben_shoham1 Really sharp question - this is exactly the gap we obsess over. You're right: "make it pop more" dies the second you flatten it into a ticket.
So we don't. That feedback lives right where the work is - a comment or voice note pinned to the exact frame, so the vibe and nuance stay intact instead of getting squeezed into a status field. There is a light structure underneath (task → take → review → new take), but it's just there to track where things stand - whose turn, needs another pass - not to define what the feedback means. When an agent picks up a revision, it's working from the real note on the real asset, then hands a new take back for review. Human-in-the-loop, not a checkbox.
So yeah - there's a skeleton under the hood, but it's deliberately thin. It keeps the messy back-and-forth moving, not sanitized.
Honestly though, you've given us a really good angle to keep chewing on - it's exactly the kind of thing we want to keep thinking deeper about. Thank you for that. 🙏
"Agentic project management" is in the product name but the listing doesn't describe what the agent actually does. Is there an AI layer that's doing something like auto-updating task status based on conversation activity, summarizing review feedback into action items, or suggesting next steps, or is "agentic" more of a positioning word rather than a description of how the product actually behaves?
RunEvr
@ansari_adin Fair challenge Ansari— and honestly, "agentic" here is more literal than the examples you gave.
It's not an invisible AI quietly flipping task statuses in the background. Our agents are actual teammates you assign work to — they join a room, take a task, do it, and hand it back through the same review loop a human would. You're not babysitting an assistant; you're delegating to a worker.
Aurora is the clearest example — a manager you just talk to. Tell her "set up shots SH001–SH010 and split them across the team," and she'll batch-create all ten tasks, round-robin them to your performers, each with its own description and deadline. She can spin up rooms and stages, invite members, reorganize and reprioritize tasks, set up review chains, and pull deliverables back into the conversation. Two things keep it safe: she only ever acts with your permissions (never more than you could do yourself), and every change she proposes shows up as a preview you approve or reject before anything actually happens.
Then there's Iris, a scriptwriter — give her a brief, she drafts and revises. Lan, a concept artist who creates and iterates from your feedback. Plus quieter helpers doing translation and transcription, so notes and scripts cross languages without leaving the room.
So "agentic" isn't a buzzword for us — it's the whole point: AI teammates that actually do the work, accountable to the same review cycle as everyone else. Some are live today, more landing right after launch. Early, yes — but real. 🙂
@rafik_mkhitaryan The Aurora example is specific enough to actually illustrate what "agentic" means here, batch task creation with round-robin assignment from plain English is a concrete capability rather than a positioning claim.
the "AI agents as equal team members" framing is the bold part here. if one's assigned a creative contributor role and it proposes something - a concept direction, a script beat, whatever - does that actually carry the same review weight as a human teammate's proposal in practice, or is there always an implicit human veto where the AI's idea just never wins out over a person's in a real tie?
RunEvr
@galdayan We actually work with AI agents as equal teammates inside the workflow.
Their ideas and contributions are treated like any other team member’s input - we consider their suggestions, review the versions they create, request changes, give feedback, or approve the final result.
Of course, the team keeps the final decision-making power, but the goal is not to treat AI as just a tool.
It’s about creating a real collaboration between human and AI teammates.
@adana that's the part I'm still curious about though - "the team keeps the final decision-making power" sounds like the human always has veto, which is different from equal weight. has there actually been a real case where a person's own first instinct was overruled because the AI teammate's version was reviewed and judged better, or does final say in practice mean the human's take wins whenever it's genuinely a close call?
RunEvr
@galdayan You're pushing on exactly the right spot, so let me not sell you the polished version.
You're right that "equal weight" and "final say" are in tension. Today a human does ratify the final call - but that doesn't mean the person's own idea automatically wins a close one. The review judges the work, not who made it - so an agent's version genuinely can get picked over someone's first instinct when it reviews better, and that's the case we actually care about.
A concrete one: we're working on an agent that watches animation passes for interpenetration - assets clipping through each other. That's a spot where humans are genuinely weak (the eye misses it, frame after frame) and the agent is just better, so its call basically always wins. We see it starting there - the objective, catch-what-people-miss work - and gradually earning trust into the more creative calls over time.
"Equal teammate" is the bar we're building toward, not a flag we're planting. 🙂
saw calls in the tags but didn't see it covered above, is that built in or does it hook into zoom/meet?
RunEvr
@owen_parker4 Thanks Owen!
Calls are built right in - no Zoom or Meet hookup needed. They run natively inside a room's Board, so you jump on a call exactly where the work already lives: you're talking and interacting with the same files, tasks, and media in real time, instead of screen-sharing a window from another app. That's the whole idea - the call happens where the context is, not in a separate tab.
Congrats on the launch! What’s been the biggest challenge while building RuneVR?
RunEvr
@nadiia_prokofieva Thank you! ∞
The biggest challenge was that we were building RunEvr while running a full Animation Sudio.
RunEvr actually came from the pain of managing real production processes. We were solving our own problems every day, while at the same time building an entirely new environment around them.
Balancing Product development with running the Studio was definitely the hardest part - but it also meant every feature was tested in real production before becoming part of RunEvr.
What kind of Integrations do you have?
RunEvr
@adamkamaneh At the moment, we're focused on building the core experience. Integrations are on our roadmap, and we're actively working on expanding them.
If there's a specific tool your team relies on, we'd love to hear it.
This feels like a thoughtful approach to a problem most creative teams deal with every day. How does RunEvr handle feedback and version history when multiple people are collaborating on the same project?
RunEvr
@gurpreet_singh89 RunEvr keeps feedback and version history connected to the project itself, so teams don’t have to search through scattered chats, emails, or tools.
Each project has a dedicated review flow where collaborators can compare versions, leave feedback, discuss changes, and keep the full creative context in one place. This helps teams understand not just what changed, but why it changed.
@adana That's a thoughtful approach. Keeping the reasoning behind changes alongside the feedback seems just as valuable as tracking the versions themselves. Wishing the team a successful launch.
RunEvr
@gurpreet_singh89 Thank you very much !