How builders ship the right thing.
Real inputs, real specs, real hand-offs. Each example is a complete flow — pick a workflow or a role and see what comes out the other side.
Draft your first intent in your repo, no account required
Install the keyless MCP server, describe what you're building, and get a preflighted intent.md in your project root. Assumptions labeled, blockers named, the Pathmode server runs locally. No account required.
Hand the authorized proposal to your coding agent
Carry the product manager's corrections and revision authorization into Claude Code, Cursor, or Codex, then check the implementation against the agreed intent.
Generate a PR description from the linked IntentSpec
The agent that built the work already holds the spec it built against. Have it write the PR description from that spec: objective, outcomes, verification criteria, and edge cases, so reviewers see intent and tests in the same place.
Run a deterministic preflight before your agent starts building
Six calibrated checks, no model call, no account. The preflight reads your intent.md, names the exact gates that block it, and the same spec always gets the same verdict. Repair happens one question at a time, then the agent starts.
Let your agent pull intent live with the Pathmode MCP server
Stop pasting specs into the agent. With a connected workspace, Claude Code preflights the repo's intent.md, reads the full execution context, stops for open PM requests and for a person to authorize the exact revision, then hands the pull request back for a diff-graded verdict.
Verify the pull request against the spec it was built from
Name the PR and Pathmode reads the diff from GitHub itself, grading every outcome, constraint, and edge case against what the code actually shows, with citations. A summary of your own work is weaker evidence, and the verdict says so.
Let a coding agent correct the spec it's building from
An agent building your spec discovers the spec was wrong. Instead of burying that in a PR comment, it records a finding that rides into the next agent's prompt and flips the falsified check to failing, then proposes the exact correction for a person to accept. The loop converges, and a human closes it.
Turn a design rationale into outcomes engineers can verify
The reasoning behind the design is the part that gets lost in handoff — and it's the part that keeps an agent from 'improving' your decisions into mush. Convert the why behind the pixels into outcomes with verification criteria.
Review a spec for implementation risk before it enters the build queue
The product side wrote the goal and the evidence. You add what they can't see — the technical edge cases, the constraints, the out-of-scope lines that keep an agent from wandering. Catch the expensive surprises while they're still cheap to fix.
Sequence the build queue so agents work in the right order
A pile of ready specs isn't a plan. The Build Queue flags which specs block others and which sit on the critical path — so you build the foundations first and an agent picking up the next item never waits on something that isn't built yet.
Anchor every outcome to user evidence
Stop writing specs from imagination. Every claim in a Pathmode spec shows what backs it and who judged it, so a year from now you can still answer 'why did we build it that way?'
Go from a vague founder-ask to a testable goal
'Make onboarding feel less janky' isn't a spec. Pathmode runs a Socratic dialogue that turns it into a measurable goal, three outcomes, and a verification plan — in a single sitting.