Hey everyone,
Tools like Cursor and Claude Code are incredible at generating code, but I’ve noticed a dangerous trend: they build terrible, fragile architectures. They create agents that fail silently in the background, miss crucial human-in-the-loop approval boundaries, and lose state.
The bottleneck for product and engineering teams is no longer writing code—it’s reviewing and governing what the AI just built.
To solve this, I built the AI Design Blueprint, an open doctrine for agentic UX. But more importantly, I built an Architect Validator (via MCP).
Instead of just hoping Claude built a safe system, you run the Architect Validator. It acts like an automated Staff Engineer, auditing the agent's proposed architecture against strict principles (state visibility, explicit handoffs, recovery paths) before you ship it.
The Proof:
Today, we put it to the ultimate test. The Architect Validator audited its own source code over 13 iterative rounds, catching its own architectural gaps until it hit a perfect 100/A score. It uses deterministic reproducibility envelopes (seed hashing) and severity-weighted scoring, so the audits are mathematically verifiable, not just LLM vibes.
What I'm doing for the Beta:
The public MCP is already live, but I am currently running a closed beta for the "Pro" tier protected validation loop.
I am looking for 5 teams to actively test the Architect Validator on their real workflows. As part of the beta, we will set up your "Project Context" (a custom ruleset layer) so the validator knows your specific tech stack, enforces your architectural rules, and remembers your previous validation runs to catch regressions.
Who I'm looking for:
Ideally, a cross-functional team (Engineer, PM, Designer) who are building agentic features and feeling the pain of "review overload."
If you want to test the validator, drop a comment or DM me. I'll drop a couple of case studies in the comments showing exactly how the validator catches silent failures in real apps.