Intelligent Governance for Production Reliability

Stop staffing for
Production Reliability.

Tomosu scores every production-bound change whether created by developers, copilots, or autonomous agents for production risk before it ships, unifying engineering and support under one governance layer.

Your Observability costs drop, issues auto-deflect before they reach customers, and your engineers stop firefighting and start building the future.

Industry First The first AI‑powered platform that embeds governance intelligence across your entire development‑to‑production lifecycle. IDE → CI/CD → Production
Live Governance Impact Simulator
Free Tier

Start scanning.
No credit card.

The Tomosu AI plugin gives every developer AI-powered code analysis, live risk scoring, and governance insights free, directly in your editor. Available for VS Code, Cursor, and Antigravity.

AI code analysis: security, performance, maintainability
Git Agent: view PRs, branches, and risk before merge
VisionBoard access: dashboard analytics & score history
$10 free scan credits: no expiry, no commitment
Tomosu AI — Free Edition
VS Code · Cursor · Antigravity · v1.0.0
Free
What’s included
Code scan & recommendations via Tomosu AI
Git Agent (view-only) — PRs, branches, diffs
$10 scan credits included, no card needed
Free · No credit card · $10 scan credits included
Designed for teams running on
GitHub GitLab Bitbucket Datadog New Relic Sentry PagerDuty Jira ServiceNow Zendesk Linear Slack LangChain Hugging Face Weights & Biases MLflow Honeycomb
The Platform

One governance layer. Four capabilities the rest of your stack was never built to handle.

Copilot and Cursor write the code. Static analyzers grade the syntax. APMs watch what already broke. Tomosu sits above all of them. It’s the layer that decides what reaches production, scores the risk, finds the change that caused the page, and writes the audit trail.

Under the hood, purpose-built AI agents for policy, risk, context, and evidence work collaboratively in real time. No single model decides alone. Each agent owns a domain, challenges the others, and together they produce a governance verdict no monolithic tool can match.

faster review throughput once AI-generated PRs clear the governance lane vs human-only review queues
~40%
drop in repeat escalation clusters once incidents feed back as guardrails pilot target, day 90
90 days
to a board-ready Production Reliability Index trendline from read-only connection to first executive review
The Burning Platform

AI velocity has outrun the enterprise’s change-management perimeter.

Six months of market data makes it impossible to ignore: governance debt is compounding faster than engineering teams can absorb it.

⚠ Market signal · April 2026
“When AI moves faster than governance, enterprises don’t just lose uptime. They lose trust. The organizations that will win the AI era are the ones building governance as infrastructure, not as a post-incident review.”
Cognizant / LinkedIn Pulse · When AI Moves Faster Than Governance
A new category

AI Governance Layer. Not another linter, APM, or code assistant.

AI assistants are the gas pedal. Observability is the rear-view mirror. Tomosu AI is the braking system, policy plane, and risk ledger: the layer every enterprise is about to require.

Not an AI code assistant
Not a static analyzer
Not an APM or logging tool
Not a PR review chatbot
Not a CI pipeline runner
Not a ticketing or ITSM platform
How it works

A governance layer for AI-generated code, from first keystroke to live production.

Tomosu plugs in read-only across the tools your teams already use: Git, observability, and ticketing. Live in days, measurable in weeks. No rip-and-replace.

At every step, specialized Tomosu agents collaborate: one resolves context, another enforces policy, a third composes risk, and a fourth writes the evidence trail. They operate as a coordinated system, not isolated checks, so governance scales with the speed your AI tools ship code.

Step 01

Govern every AI-assisted change

Tomosu evaluates code against your organization’s standards as it’s written, so risk is surfaced and corrected long before it has a chance to reach your users.

Step 02

Clear the review queue at AI speed

Every change reaching your main branch arrives with a clear, evidence-backed verdict. The backlog moves at the pace AI generates, not at the pace humans can keep up.

Step 03

One executive view of AI risk

A real-time read on where AI-generated risk is compounding across your codebase, in language the CTO operates and the CFO, CIO, CCO, and board can act on.

Step 04

Close every production fire for good

When something breaks, the change responsible is identified instantly and the same failure pattern is prevented from re-surfacing. Engineers stop firefighting and return to shipping the roadmap.

Your code
Repos & pull requests
Your AI assistants
Copilot / Cursor / Claude
Your stack
Production, Observability & ticketing
Tomosu AI
Governance layer
Confidence in every release
A unified view of AI risk
Engineers freed from firefighting
Governance Lane

Every AI-generated PR clears one streaming evaluation lane.

Context resolved. Policy aligned. Risk composed. Evidence written. Four checks, one auditable trail. Running the moment a change is opened, not after the incident.

tomosu · governance lane
Streaming
#4821Refactor session router·h.limPassed
#4822Tighten retry semantics·a.oseiPassed
#4823Patch token expiry edge·m.chenHeld
#4824Bump tracing client·r.bauerPassed
#4825Rewrite checkout queue·j.iyerHeld
#4826Inline pricing helper·s.parkPassed
#4827 Cleanup deprecated env · t.alvarez Checking
Now Reviewing
#4827 Cleanup deprecated env
author t.alvarez · 1 reviewer
01
Context resolved
02
Policy alignment
03
Risk composition
04
Evidence written
evaluating…
The Tomosu Indexes

One risk ledger every AI-generated change rolls up into.

Static analyzers give you pass/fail. APMs give you mean-time-to-detect. Tomosu gives you eight trendable, executive-readable signals, calibrated to your stack.

PRI

Production Reliability Index

A single trendable master score that rolls up the seven sub-indices, calibrated per organization to reflect your architecture, maturity, and risk tolerance. The one number the board tracks.

FI
Fragility Index

How likely this code is to break, based on structural signals and real production behavior.

DI
Drift Index

The gap between what dev expected and what production delivered. “Test like you fly.”

GC
Governance Compliance

Severity-weighted adherence to your organization’s coding, security, and observability standards.

RS
Runtime Signals

Live production health: error rate, latency, and resource anomalies aggregated per service.

CV
Code Volatility

Churn and hotspot density. Penalizes files that keep re-triggering the same issues.

DV
Deployment Velocity

Frequency and safety of releases. Rewards small, confident batches.

EEI
Escalation Index

The interrupt tax on engineering: repeat ticket rate, tier-level MTTR, senior on-call load.

Roll-up into PRI

One weighted score. One trendline. Calibrated to your org, not a generic template.

Built for the full C-suite

One governance layer every stakeholder reads.

The CTO operates it. The CFO budgets against it. The CIO reports to the board with it. The CCO files it as compliance evidence.

CTO / VP Engineering
Reclaim AI’s promised velocity

Ship AI-generated code without trading away stability. Cut PR review time, catch bad patterns pre-merge, and reduce repeat incidents.

CIO
One platform for AI sprawl

Only 12% of enterprises have a centralized governance platform for agentic AI. Tomosu is yours, with a defensible audit trail.

CFO
Turn AI risk into a line item

PRI is a trendable financial signal. Quantify how much AI-accelerated risk is compounding each quarter, and justify AI spend to the board.

CCO / Head of Support
Evidence + support leverage

Every governance decision has an evidence trail. Escalations arrive with context, not raw logs. Repeat tickets get deflected upstream.

Why Tomosu wins

Point solutions don’t speak a common governance language. Tomosu is that language.

🔒
Governance built for AI, not retrofitted

Policy, identity, approval, and audit designed from day one for AI-generated change, not forced onto workflows built for humans.

🔄
Closed loop between code and production

Live incidents become guardrails in the IDE. The governance layer gets smarter every week, without your team writing new rules.

📊
One risk ledger every stakeholder reads

PRI is the single trendable number the CTO operates, the CFO budgets against, and the board tracks. No more translation layers.

👁
Sits above your existing stack

Works with the Git, observability, and ticketing tools you already run. Read-only by default. Enforcement stays under your control.

🚨
Escalations the right tier can actually act on

Incidents arrive with root-cause context, a likely fix, and an evidence trail. L1 solves what only L3 could before.

🏛
Audit-ready by default

Every governance decision is logged with evidence, ready for SOC 2, ISO, or internal AI-use policy reviews without a fire drill.

90-day pilot

A measurable pilot with milestones, not vibes.

Baseline in week one. Visible risk ledger by day 30. Full closed loop by day 60. Board-ready trendline by day 90.

Week 0–2

Baseline & calibration

Connect read-only to Git, observability, and ticketing. Establish baseline metrics and a service-level risk heatmap.

First PRI reading live
Day 30

Visibility

IDE plugin and advisory merge gate running on first repos. Service risk heatmap live on the Visionboard.

Interrupt tax visible
Day 60

Enrichment

Escalation routing active with context-attached packets. L1/L2 resolving what only L3 could before.

30–40% MTTR gain
Day 90

Closed loop

Production incidents feeding back as new guardrails. Repeat clusters dropping. Board-ready PRI trendline.

~40% repeat reduction
Start your 90-day pilot
Pilot outcomes

The numbers your board, your CFO, and your on-call team all care about.

Conservative targets for mid-size SaaS with 50–300 engineers, 24/7 production workloads, and meaningful AI-assisted PR volume.

Estimated up to
73%
reduction in support escalations
Estimated up to
68%
decrease in engineering tickets
Estimated up to
40+ hrs
developer time reclaimed weekly
Estimated up to
50%
cut in post-deployment failures
Estimated up to
$2.4M
annual support cost savings
Estimated up to
3× faster
innovation delivery cycles
Estimated upper bounds. Actual outcomes depend on baseline metrics, data coverage, and adoption of recommended actions.
Before you ask

Common questions from engineering leaders.

Why is a governance layer like Tomosu critical right now, in the AI era?
Because the velocity has already changed and the perimeter hasn’t. AI assistants are generating, refactoring, and merging code at machine speed across every team in your org, while merge review, change management, and audit trails still run at human speed. The result is governance debt that compounds every sprint: code reaches production that no human author can fully explain, no reviewer fully understood, and no policy was ever asked to evaluate. Tomosu closes that gap by inserting a governance layer between AI-generated code and production, so velocity stays high and reliability doesn’t silently erode.
AI-generated code already passes our tests and CI. Why isn’t that enough for product reliability?
Tests catch what you thought to test for. CI catches what your linters know to look for. Neither catches the failure modes that AI introduces: subtle context drift, plausible-but-wrong dependency choices, business-logic violations that compile cleanly, security regressions that pattern-match to safe code. The 2026 State of AI-Powered Engineering report puts the number at 43%: that’s the share of AI-generated changes that still break in production after passing QA and staging. Tomosu adds a governance evaluation that reasons about policy fit and risk, not just syntax correctness. It’s the layer your test pyramid was never built to be.
How does Tomosu actually improve product reliability, both left-to-right and right-to-left?
Left → right (dev to prod): every AI-generated PR clears a streaming governance lane (context resolved, policy aligned, risk composed, evidence written) before merge. The risky 5% gets a human; the rest moves at AI speed. Reliability stops depending on whether the right reviewer was awake.

Right ← left (prod back to dev): the moment something fails in production, Tomosu attributes it to the responsible AI change, surfaces the failure pattern, and feeds it back as a guardrail in the lane. The same class of incident doesn’t ship twice. Engineers stop firefighting; the system gets stronger every cycle. That closed loop is what turns AI-accelerated velocity into AI-accelerated reliability.
As an engineering leader, what is the cost of not putting a governance layer over AI-generated code?
It compounds in three places at once. On reliability: repeat incidents from the same hallucinated patterns, MTTR creeping up, on-call burnout. On compliance: SOC 2, ISO, and internal AI-use policies become quarterly fire drills because no system of record explains why each AI change was allowed to merge. On trust: the next board, regulator, or enterprise customer asks “how do you govern AI-generated code in production?” and the honest answer is “we don’t.” The cost isn’t a single big incident; it’s the slow erosion of the velocity advantage AI was supposed to deliver.
As a software engineer, will Tomosu slow me down or add review noise?
The opposite. Tomosu is built so the boring 95% of AI-generated PRs (well-scoped, policy-aligned, low-risk) clear the lane in seconds with full evidence written automatically. Your reviewer attention goes only to the changes that actually need a human eye. In practice that means fewer review queue interrupts, faster merge throughput on routine work, and far fewer 2 a.m. pages from changes that should never have shipped. The governance layer isn’t a tax on engineers; it’s the thing that lets engineers trust AI-assisted velocity without owning the failure mode personally.
Does Tomosu replace Copilot, Cursor, or our observability stack?
No. Tomosu sits above them. Your engineers keep their AI assistants. Your SRE team keeps Datadog, New Relic, or Dynatrace. Tomosu is the governance layer that unifies signal across all of them into one risk ledger.
Is the merge gate blocking or advisory?
Your choice. Most teams start advisory, see the risk ledger take shape over 30 days, and promote specific policies to blocking once they’ve built trust in the signal.
What data does Tomosu need access to?
Read-only: Git PR/commit metadata, observability pointers (metrics/logs/traces), and ticketing metadata. Deploy metadata optional. Data handling, retention, and tenant isolation are finalized during onboarding security review.
How long before we see value?
First risk score within two weeks. Measurable MTTR and escalation reduction by day 60. Full board-ready trendline by day 90. Outcomes are baseline-dependent, not guaranteed.
Who’s the right internal champion to bring Tomosu in?
CTO or VP Engineering is the economic buyer. The strongest conversations include a Head of Support or Head of SRE as co-champion, since they feel the interrupt tax most directly.
Why not just use Claude Code or Cursor for this?
Claude Code is developer-initiated and dev-time—it reads files you hand it. Tomosu runs on a cron on your production server: it reads live logs, extracts class names from stack traces, fetches the actual source files from GitHub that caused the error, and creates structured tickets automatically while your team sleeps. The trigger is your production runtime, not a developer’s question. They operate in entirely different positions in the stack.
We have senior engineers. Can’t we just build this ourselves?
The LLM call is the easy part. What takes 12–18 months: a 25-rule scoring matrix with empirically calibrated critical caps, SHA-256 file hashing to skip unchanged code, token-count batching to avoid context window overflows, error fingerprinting to prevent hundreds of duplicate tickets from one root cause, semantic deduplication via vector embeddings, and per-user spending limits. The weights in the scoring matrix only become credible after you’ve correlated them against real production incidents—data you don’t have until after your first outage.
We already have Datadog (or New Relic, Dynatrace). What does Tomosu add?
Your APM tells you something is broken. Tomosu tells you which change broke it, which governance rule it violated, and here is the before/after fix. Specifically: a production error surfaces → Tomosu extracts the failing class → fetches that source file from Git → runs the scoring matrix → creates a ticket with root cause, telemetry signal, and code diff attached. Existing observability watches symptoms. Tomosu attributes causes and closes the loop back to the code that shipped them.
Why a scoring system? Can’t you just show us the issues?
Issue lists don’t move engineering organizations. Trending numbers do. Tomosu gives every file two scores: a pre-analysis score (what the code is right now) and a confidence score (projected if fixes are applied, hard-capped at 85 so the AI never oversells itself). Critical caps make the stakes concrete: one missing external timeout puts a Grade C ceiling on the codebase regardless of everything else; one hardcoded secret is Grade F. These are the numbers that go into QBRs and board decks. Issue lists don’t.

The governance layer the enterprise is about to require.

For engineering leaders ready to turn AI-accelerated velocity into an auditable, board-defensible risk ledger, before the next Amazon-scale incident becomes yours.