First-class page

Methodology

This site is an editorial project that happens to look like a directory. The method is the product. If the method is thin, the listings are ads.

What we are assessing

A listing is a product, platform, or framework that occupies at least one layer of an agent-native software factory: intent, orchestration, execution, sandboxing, verification, or observability. We do not list generic LLMs, note-taking apps, or CI vendors unless they have a documented agent-native surface.

We also do not pretend the older meaning of "software factory" went away. Defense and DevSecOps programs still use the phrase for paved pipelines. That history is why definitional pages here are written in public.

Primary sources only

Structured fields — URL, repository, docs, layers, model independence, deployment, open-source status, license, and pricing shape — must be supportable from a primary source: the vendor's own site, docs, pricing page, repository, or license file. Recap blogs are leads, not sources.

If we cannot confirm a field, we omit it or say so in the take. We do not infer "self-hosted" from a CLI that runs locally unless the vendor documents a self-hosted control plane or worker. We do not mark a product multi-model because a blog says "works with any LLM."

What verifiedAt means

verifiedAt is load-bearing. It is the UTC date a human (or an agent whose work a human accepted) last checked the listing against primary sources. It appears on every listing page. It is not a claim that the product is good, safe, or still priced as written.

Pricing rot is expected. Dollar amounts in prose are snapshots. The structured pricingModel field records the shape (free, usage, seat, enterprise, mixed), which changes more slowly than the sticker.

The editorial take

Spec sheets are easy to copy and easy to game. The take is the assessment: what the product is in a factory, where it stops, and which claims we refuse to repeat. It is opinionated and should be fair. We will say a product is the closest fit for a job. We will also say when the category narrative is doing more work than the docs.

Strengths and limitations are not balanced for sport. A listing can have more of one than the other. They should be specific enough to be wrong.

Production evidence

We do not invent figures. Vendor homepage counters, "trusted by" rows, and founder interviews are not production evidence. A named organization's own write-up, with a date and a method, can be. When we repeat a vendor-published customer list or statistic, we label it as such and mark it unverified.

Case studies are a separate collection with required source links on every scale claim. Until a claim can be checked against a primary source, it does not get a file.

How listings are stored

One YAML file per tool at src/content/tools/<slug>.yaml. The slug field must match the filename. Guides are MDX. Zod schemas in src/content.config.ts reject invalid entries at build time. CI checks slug uniqueness, filename match, and duplicate names and URLs on every push. Published-link checks run in a separate job so a flaky vendor HEAD cannot fail the build.

Git is the CMS. There is no admin panel, no vendor self-serve listing, and no database.

How to submit

Open a GitHub issue with the listing form, or send a pull request that adds a YAML file. An agent may draft the entry. A human publishes. Nothing auto-merges. We will ask for primary-source URLs. We will not accept a paragraph of marketing as evidence.

Submit a tool · Contributing guide

What we will not do

• Paid placements, sponsored ranks, or "featured" slots.
• Vendor-written listings published without an editorial pass.
• User accounts, saved collections, public comments, or star ratings.
• A web form that writes to production. GitHub already handles intake.
• Auto-merge, from agents or from vendors.

Conflicts of interest

Trevize. This site is published by Eelco Wiersma, who founded Trevize (trevize.dev). Trevize is listed because it belongs in the category: cloud workspaces, shared sessions, and automated loops aimed at a factory-shaped outcome. The listing is written in the same house voice as the others and is required to disclose this relationship in its take. We do not give Trevize a default rank, a homepage hero, or a pass on missing production evidence.

If that arrangement is unacceptable, do not treat the Trevize page as a third-party review. Treat it as a primary-source description of a product the publisher operates, checked against the public site on verifiedAt. Corrections from readers are welcome and will be applied in public.

Other conflicts — employment, investment, paid advisory — will be named on the relevant listing and on this page when they exist. As of the seed set, Trevize is the one we know we must declare.

Corrections

Open an issue. If a structured field is wrong, we will bump verifiedAt and updatedAt when we fix it. We will not silently rewrite a take to soften a limitation.