I’m looking for a small number of design partners to review an early project called Topogram.
Topogram is aimed at a specific problem:
how do humans and coding agents evolve real software without letting intent, generated outputs, and verification drift apart?
The core idea is simple:
- keep durable software intent explicit
- generate contracts and runnable artifacts from that intent
- keep verification attached to the same source of truth
- make it clearer what should stay generated, what should stay hand-maintained, and what should stop for human review
This is not a “prompt to product” tool and it is not a production-ready platform.
The current wedge is narrower:
- brownfield recovery and reconcile/adopt workflows
- maintained-app change guidance
- proof-oriented generated artifacts and verification
- explicit safe, guarded, and no-go boundaries for agent-assisted change
The repo already has working proof surfaces for:
- generated examples across multiple domains
- brownfield recovery on real stacks
- a maintained proof app that shows how Topogram can guide edits to existing code
- explicit single-agent and bounded multi-agent planning surfaces
If that problem space is familiar, I’d love a limited round of review from people across a real software team, especially:
- developers and technical leads already using coding agents on real systems
- product designers and UX people who care about where agent assistance should stop and human judgment should stay in the loop
- product owners who feel the cost when workflow intent, implementation, and review drift apart
- teams working on brownfield systems rather than only Greenfield demos
- people who are opinionated about contracts, architecture, workflow semantics, and review boundaries
Good fit:
- cross-functional software teams comfortable with early infrastructure
- people willing to react to a real repo, proof docs, and evaluator path
- teams with one contained workflow or subsystem they’d use to pressure-test this
- teams where engineering, design, and product all have a stake in how changes are proposed, reviewed, and verified
Bad fit:
- teams looking for a no-code builder
- teams expecting production-ready auth or deployment hardening today
- teams wanting a generic agent runtime or orchestration platform
If you want to take a look, the best starting points are:
If you’re interested, the current lightweight path is:
- open a GitHub issue: attebury/topogram/issues
- use the title prefix
alpha interest: - include:
- what kind of codebase or system you’re working on
- whether the main pressure is brownfield recovery, maintained-app evolution, or proof/verification
- where coding agents are helping today, and where they’re drifting
What I’m looking for right now is not broad attention. I’m looking for a few sharp conversations with teams who actually feel this problem from different angles: engineering, design, UX, and product.
If that’s you, I’d really appreciate the review.
Top comments (0)