UAT generation
UAT cases that don't go stale
Generated from the code and the requirements behind it. When a feature changes, the affected cases are updated rather than quietly becoming wrong.
The problem
Acceptance criteria drift from the product
UAT cases are written against the spec. The spec was written before the build. Three sprints of scope changes later, the cases describe a product that doesn't exist — so testers work around them, and the document becomes a compliance artifact rather than a testing tool.
Nobody rewrites them because rewriting them means re-reading the code, and the person who understood both left.
What it does
Cases derived from both sides
A case written from the code alone describes the implementation. One written from the requirement alone describes an intention nobody has checked was built. These read both.
Code and requirements together
Retrieves the implementation and the requirement it came from. Cases describe what the feature does, expressed in the language of the requirement.
Change detection
When a code path or a requirement changes, the cases that depend on it are flagged and regenerated.
Traceability
Each case carries its link back to the code and the requirement, so an auditor can follow the chain without interviewing anyone.
Business language
Written for testers and stakeholders, not as a restatement of the implementation.
FAQ
Where do requirements come from?
What format are cases produced in?
Does it handle regression scope?
The knowledge graph tracks what calls what, so a change surfaces the cases downstream of it, not only the ones directly touching it.