Quality gates for AI coding agents.

You can trust that what you get is what you asked for

“Done” means the criteria you agreed at the start were met, with evidence attached: the actual commands, exit codes, output, and who ran each check. Not the agent’s word for it.

Once you trust the result, you stop re-checking it. Line-by-line review, re-testing and “did it really do that?” prompts move off your plate and onto the agent. Trust is what lets you hand off more.

The agent can’t call its own work done

Exit criteria are written before the work starts and enforced when the work moves to Done. If a required gate fails, Done is refused, and the refusal says exactly what to fix.

The agent has to show evidence against criteria it didn’t get to pick. The plan becomes something the agent follows, not just something it started from.

Agents run longer on their own, with less of you in the loop

Without gates, you are the gate: you read the diff, spot what’s missing, and prompt again. With gates, the agent runs verify, fix, re-verify by itself, because Done stays refused until the evidence exists. The refusal tells it what to work on next.

You set the criteria once and come back when the work actually passes. Fewer “one more prompt and it’ll be done” rounds.

Every piece of generated code is proven against the plan

Agents now write code faster than people can review it. Gates let the checking scale with the output.

Each claim in the plan is tied to the gates that check it, and each gate to its evidence. Follow any result back to the requirement it proves: requirement, gate, attempt, verdict. Requirements traceability, kept as you go.

It catches the shortest path to “looks done”

Left alone, AI coding agents take the shortest path to something that looks finished. They stub out the hard function, narrow a test until it passes, decide a requirement was optional, or quietly use a different approach than the plan agreed. Then they report that they’re done.

Gates catch these shortcuts before Done, not in review after it.

Six independent ways of checking, so one blind spot doesn’t sink you

Every gate uses one of six techniques, and each asks a different question. One claim is covered by several, so a gap in one is caught by another.

Evidence, not claims, on a record that can’t be rewritten

Every check records the exact command, its exit code and its output. Levr decides pass or fail from those facts, not from what the runner reports. Re-runs add a new record and never overwrite the old one, so the fix loop stays visible: how many rounds it took, and what changed each round.

Each run is stamped with who did it: a human, an agent, or CI. The stamp comes from where the request came from, not from anything in it, so a report can’t pretend to be CI.

Readiness beyond the code

Some checks are real, but no command can run them. Has someone outside the team followed the support runbook? Was the rollback rehearsed? Is pricing approved?

Guided gates cover these. A person or an agent carries out the check and reports what they saw, and a bare “pass” with nothing observed is refused. A guided gate blocks Done exactly like a failing test, instead of sitting on a checklist nobody re-reads.

Hands-on checks in a web app? Levr Browser lets an agent do them in a real browser and attach what it saw.

You decide what blocks, and exceptions are honest

For each gate on each piece of work, you choose whether it’s required (blocks Done) or advisory (reports only). Keep the required set small enough to mean something.

Need to move ahead anyway? A waiver needs a written reason, is recorded with its author, and leaves the failing result readable. If a check changes after the work was verified, it’s flagged. Nothing is skipped silently.

Compliance evidence as a side effect of doing the work

Gates line up with the assurance standards teams already work under, including NIST SSDF and IR 8397, IEEE 1012, DO-178C traceability, ISO 29148 and SLSA. The decision record builds up as the work happens, not as a document someone assembles afterwards. Levr is aligned with these standards, not certified against them.