Different work needs different AI oversight, and Revolte gives you both. Our Interactive Sessions let you drive the full lifecycle with the agents, step by step: architecture, code, tests, staging, deploy. You approve every step. Autopilot mode hands off a Jira ticket end-to-end, with agents planning, coding, opening the PR, and deploying. Same workspace, same governance: plan approval, inline diffs, cost caps, and audit trails, built in. Hands-on when you want control, hands-off when you don't.
Every AI dev tool makes you pick a side. Cursor is hands-on: you're in the loop for every keystroke. Devin is hands-off: you hand it a task and check the result. Both are good, but neither is enough on its own for a real team. Because different work needs different oversight.
A tricky refactor in your payments service? You want hands-on. A backlog of dependency bumps? Hand it off. The real question isn't "do we adopt AI?" It's "how do we adopt it across different work with different risk profiles?" Nobody's answering that.
So we built Revolte to give you both, in one workspace.
Autopilot mode (from our previous launch) takes a Jira ticket and runs it end-to-end through PR and deploy, with engineers approving the meaningful steps.
Today we're adding Interactive Sessions: a tabbed workspace where you drive the full lifecycle with the agents directly, architecture, code, tests, staging, deploy. One session per task, you approve every step. No Jira required. Sign up and start in under a minute.
Same governance layer for both. Plan approval before code, inline diffs before merge, cost caps before deploy, audit trail on every action.
Hands-on when you want control, hands-off when you want throughput. Same platform, same procurement conversation.
Would love the hard feedback, especially from engineering leaders figuring out how to adopt AI across teams with different risk appetites. That's the problem we built this for.
Love that you made "you approve every step" a first-class feature instead of chasing full autopilot; that trust-through-control approach is exactly what engineering teams actually need.
Really like the idea of how Revolte can work with both new ideas and existing codebase. Feels much closer to how real engineering teams actually work.
Honestly i would be more interested in the failure cases than the happy path. Whats the most comman reason an agent run gets stopped?
I can see Interactive Sessions being useful for unfamiliar codebases. does the agent keep context across those sessions?
The audit trail caught my attention more than the code generation. are teams using it mainly for governance or debugging too?
For me the biggest question would be deployment confidence. what happens when an agent hits something unexpected mid deploy?
Cost caps + audit trails are underrated. agent autonomy gets much easier to sell when there is a clear paper trail.
The step by step approval model feels practical. i would trust autopilot more after seeing exactly where i can intervene.
No Jira required for Interactive sessions is a nice touch. Sometimes you just want to take an idea and start working on it without turning it into a ticket first.
The approval flow is probably the part that makes this easier to trust. having AI do the work is one thing, knowing exactly where a human can step in is another.
Looks exciting! My only question is when do I trust an AI agent enough to let it touch my codebase?
@rajagopalanar As a solo developer so far I've not considered full automation of my SDLC, but it may be something I consider in the future with tools like Revolte.
The hardest engineering question in building Revolte was this: how do you make Interactive Sessions and Autopilot feel like one product, not two things bolted together?
The answer is that they share a substrate. Both run on the same agent stack, the same governance layer, the same Platform-as-Code contracts. When you switch from driving a session step by step in Interactive to handing off a Jira ticket in Autopilot, you're not moving to a different system. It's the same agents, with a different amount of your attention on them.
That's what makes it a real adoption story for enterprises. You're not deploying two tools with two governance models. You're deploying one platform that meets your teams where they are, some hands-on, some hands-off, all inside the same boundaries.
Happy to go deep on the architecture if anyone's curious.
Nice to see a tool treat the whole delivery lifecycle as the product rather than just code generation. Feels like a different category from the editor assistants. Rooting for you.
The out-of-the-box preview and staging setup sounds awesome ! If it really eliminates the need to wrestle with custome Docker/K8s configs, that's a huge time saver. 🚀
Nice to see something that covers the whole lifecycle rather than just the editor. Feels like a different category from the usual assistants.
Spent the last few months on Interactive Sessions. The question that drove the design: how fast can we get an engineer from sign up to seeing the agents do something genuinely useful in their own workflow?
Where we landed: sign in, open a tab, start a session. No Jira setup, no CI config, no long onboarding. The tabbed workspace works like your browser, one session per task, switch between them, close what you're done with.
You drive the full lifecycle step by step: architecture, code, tests, staging, preview, deploy. When the agents hit a judgment call, you get a focused prompt. When they're ready to touch your code, you see the plan, then the diff, then you approve or modify.
Autopilot is still there for the async work, connect Jira and tickets flow through end to end. But Interactive Sessions is the mode you'll live in day to day, and the one you can try in a minute without committing to anything.
Would love to hear what people think of the flow once you've tried it.
Really solid launch. The per outcome pricing instead of per seat is a refreshing choice too, cost tracking actual delivery rather than headcount just makes sense.
Used it to make something that popped into mind over the weekend. Having something functional that could be shared so quickly was genuinely great. Excited to try out more ideas I have in mind now.
About Interactive Sessions on Product Hunt
“Drive the full SDLC with AI agents, step by step”
Interactive Sessions launched on Product Hunt on August 31st, 2026 and earned 175 upvotes and 57 comments, earning #2 Product of the Day. Different work needs different AI oversight, and Revolte gives you both. Our Interactive Sessions let you drive the full lifecycle with the agents, step by step: architecture, code, tests, staging, deploy. You approve every step. Autopilot mode hands off a Jira ticket end-to-end, with agents planning, coding, opening the PR, and deploying. Same workspace, same governance: plan approval, inline diffs, cost caps, and audit trails, built in. Hands-on when you want control, hands-off when you don't.
Interactive Sessions was featured in Software Engineering (42.9k followers), Developer Tools (518.4k followers) and Artificial Intelligence (477.3k followers) on Product Hunt. Together, these topics include over 206.4k products, making this a competitive space to launch in.
Who hunted Interactive Sessions?
Interactive Sessions was hunted by ISTIAK AHMAD. A “hunter” on Product Hunt is the community member who submits a product to the platform — uploading the images, the link, and tagging the makers behind it. Hunters typically write the first comment explaining why a product is worth attention, and their followers are notified the moment they post. Around 79% of featured launches on Product Hunt are self-hunted by their makers, but a well-known hunter still acts as a signal of quality to the rest of the community. See the full all-time top hunters leaderboard to discover who is shaping the Product Hunt ecosystem.
Want to see how Interactive Sessions stacked up against nearby launches in real time? Check out the live launch dashboard for upvote speed charts, proximity comparisons, and more analytics.
ISTIAK AHMAD
Hey PH 👋 Raj here, co-founder & CEO of Revolte.
Every AI dev tool makes you pick a side. Cursor is hands-on: you're in the loop for every keystroke. Devin is hands-off: you hand it a task and check the result. Both are good, but neither is enough on its own for a real team. Because different work needs different oversight.
A tricky refactor in your payments service? You want hands-on. A backlog of dependency bumps? Hand it off. The real question isn't "do we adopt AI?" It's "how do we adopt it across different work with different risk profiles?" Nobody's answering that.
So we built Revolte to give you both, in one workspace.
Autopilot mode (from our previous launch) takes a Jira ticket and runs it end-to-end through PR and deploy, with engineers approving the meaningful steps.
Today we're adding Interactive Sessions: a tabbed workspace where you drive the full lifecycle with the agents directly, architecture, code, tests, staging, deploy. One session per task, you approve every step. No Jira required. Sign up and start in under a minute.
Same governance layer for both. Plan approval before code, inline diffs before merge, cost caps before deploy, audit trail on every action.
Hands-on when you want control, hands-off when you want throughput. Same platform, same procurement conversation.
Would love the hard feedback, especially from engineering leaders figuring out how to adopt AI across teams with different risk appetites. That's the problem we built this for.