The shortest path from feedback to code
Your users shape the product.
The agent writes the PR.
Redzam turns what your users and stakeholders ask for into a reviewed pull request. It reasons over a typed, versioned graph of your codebase, works inside the rules your repo defines, and never merges on its own — a human always reviews.
A user describes what they need. Redzam reasons over your codebase graph and opens a pull request — inside the rules your repo sets. You review and merge.
How it works
From a sentence to a reviewed pull request.
Redzam is an event-driven agent: a request comes in, it routes itself through your codebase graph, makes a safe change, and hands you a PR — without you guiding each step.
- 01
Someone asks
A user, teammate, or stakeholder describes a bug or a change in plain language — from the embedded widget, or a reported runtime error.
- 02
Routed into the graph
Redzam maps the request to the exact place in your codebase — the right vertex, at the exact indexed commit. No guessing, no grep.
- 03
Reasoned, not guessed
It reasons over contracts, callers, dependencies, effects, and blast radius — the graph is the decision substrate for a safe change.
- 04
Inside your rules
The agent stays within the guardrails your repo defines — what it may touch, what's off-limits, what needs review. Users work in a sandbox you set.
- 05
Source fetched on demand
Only the implicated files are pulled from GitHub at change time. Source is never stored on Redzam.
- 06
Change, then verify
Gemini generates the change; it's checked against the contracts the graph asserts before anything ships.
- 07
A reviewed pull request
A branch and PR with the explanation and the affected graph paths. Nothing merges on its own — a human reviews and ships.
Who drives it
A short-circuit between the people who use software and the code behind it.
Today, feedback crawls through triage, backlog, and hand-offs — and most of it dies. Redzam collapses that path: the person closest to the need shapes the product directly, through an agent that respects your rules.
The people using your app
A customer hits a bug or wants something changed. Instead of a support ticket that dies in a backlog, their words become a scoped, reviewable pull request.
The people who own the outcome
Product managers, ops, support, QA — the non-developers closest to the problem. They describe the change; the agent turns intent into code, safely.
The scenario
An internal tool that its own users grow.
A product manager stands up an internal app instead of buying yet another SaaS seat. It rolls out to a team, then a department. As people use it, they ask for what they need — a field here, a report there, a bug gone. Each request becomes a pull request, inside the rules the repo defines, reviewed before it ships. The tool grows with the people who use it, layer by layer.
Safety first
Users drive the code — inside the rails you set.
Letting the people who use an app influence its code is only responsible if it's bounded. Redzam is built around the constraints that make it safe.
Rules your repo defines
Each workspace sets its own agent rules — what may change, what's off-limits, coding standards, what always needs review. Users act inside a sandbox you configure, not a blank check.
A human reviews every change
Redzam proposes; it never merges. Every change lands as a pull request a person approves. The short-circuit is on feedback-to-proposal — never proposal-to-production.
Your source never lives on Redzam
Only graph metadata is stored. Source is fetched from GitHub on demand at change time and never persisted. Enrichment runs in your CI, where the code already is.
The graph won't lie about what it doesn't know
Every gap is a queryable marker. A shortfall marks the change degraded instead of pretending to be complete — so the agent never guarantees safety on blind spots.
Why the graph matters
Why it's safe to let a request become code.
The reason Redzam can turn intent into a trustworthy pull request is the substrate underneath it.
The graph is a decision substrate, not a search index
Anyone can pipe a user's words into an LLM and get a diff. What makes it safe to let users influence code is the graph: contracts, callers, effects, and blast radius are all first-class, so a change is reasoned — not guessed.
It knows what it doesn't know
The dangerous failure isn't an incomplete graph — it's one that pretends to be complete. Every gap is a queryable marker; a shortfall marks the change degraded rather than falsely safe. The agent never guarantees safety on blind spots.
Precise, versioned, drift-aware
A request resolves to the exact code at the exact indexed commit. The graph is append-only and versioned per commit, so Redzam knows when it's stale instead of reasoning on the wrong code.
Mechanical where it must be, AI where it helps
SWC extracts exact structure — line numbers, symbols, call graph. Gemini handles only semantic understanding and the change itself. Facts come from the parser, not the model.
See it in action
Drive an app you don't own — and watch a PR appear.
The live demo is a public, open-source web store running the Redzam widget. Report a bug or ask for a change like any user would — then watch the agent reason over the graph and open a real pull request on GitHub.
Built with
A pipeline of exact tools and one reasoning engine.
SWC does the mechanical work — exact line numbers and symbols. Gemini handles only semantic understanding. Line numbers come from the parser, not the model.