Trust your code is ready. Without spending your week proving it.
Every PR gets the scrutiny of a full manual QA pass, without asking your engineers to be the ones doing it.
no credit card required
The afternoon it broke anyway
Three weeks ago, an engineer shipped a small change to one API endpoint. He mapped out every place in the app the change could touch, tested each one himself, and merged it.
Two days later, it broke, on a path he had not thought to check.
He was not careless. He was fast, and fast is exactly the problem.
The more your team ships, the less time anyone has to click through every path a change might touch, and the tax comes due exactly where nobody was looking.
Ito looks there before you merge, so you get your week back, and you get to trust the PR is actually ready, not just quickly reviewed.
Why this keeps happening to good teams
You know how this goes: change a button used in fifty different places, and it looks right in the five you happened to check. The sixth is where the button's label runs long and the text cuts off.
Ito catches these blind spots for you: a video file that played back perfectly on every MacBook in the office broke the moment a teammate opened it on a Windows machine, because nobody tested the file outside macOS.
Neither bug came from careless engineering. Both came from the same limit every team hits: you can only click through as many paths as you have hours in the day, and the one you skip is too often the one that breaks.
Yet, it's not about how the code got written. Even for teams where most of their codebase today is still hand-written, not AI-generated, the test tax still shows up there just the same.
The problem was never who wrote the code. It is balancing how much you have to test to truly merge with confidence, and what's worth your time to test by hand.
Ito vs. a bug bot on the same PR
A 10-person Series A engineering team already runs a code review bot on every pull request, and it does catch real problems. But when its CTO compared it against Ito, the difference was not close. Reading code and running it are different disciplines. One tells you the code looks right. The other tells you it works.
Reads the diff
- — Reviews your change as text
- — Flags problems it can infer from the code
- — Never actually runs the app
- — Tells you the code looks right
Runs the app
- — Clicks through the same flow a QA engineer would
- — Surfaces issues a review bot never flags
- — Runs your change before a customer can
- — Tells you the code actually works
Your judgment, encoded once
Two engineering leads asked us for almost the same thing.
One wanted the equivalent of IDE warning settings for their PRs: tell Ito which classes of issues are a blocking problem and which ones are fine to ignore, the same way an IDE lets you silence a warning you've already decided doesn't apply to you.
Another asked for the same control, unprompted, on a separate call: guide the feedback once, tell it what you don't care about, and have it remember.
So that's what Ito does. Tell it what actually matters on your codebase: security, access control, whatever keeps you up at night, and what to ignore, once. Ito keeps that in mind on every PR after that, without you re-explaining it every time.
Ito helps my team ship faster by testing all edge cases right on their PRs. I refuse to go back to manual testing.
Questions, answered.
What the test tax actually is, and how Ito fits alongside the process you already run.
Stop paying the test tax.
Get your afternoons back.
no credit card required, cancel anytime