The agent quality loop Δ accuracy ▲ +6.8% on last fix

Ship agents that
self‑improve in production.

An SDK that closes the loop. An AI judge evaluates every step of every production trace — not just the final output — proposes a code-level fix, then validates it against your trace history before you ship.

2 design partners onboarding · may 25
120+ customers shipped prior, by founders
0 ground truths required helix watches the trace
// founders previously shipped at
Vanta-for-GDPR · AI Sec RFP Platform · King's College London · Top-20 Global Law Firm · 120+ customers
The status quo is silent

Evals tell you what works.
Production tells you what breaks.

AI engineers ship agents that pass evals and fail silently in the wild. The first signal is a customer screenshot. The fix lands blind — and you have no way of knowing what else broke unless you build expensive ground truths for every step of every workflow.

[ 01.a ]  eval blindness

Evals score the output, not the reasoning.

Your suite goes green while the agent invents a tool argument, skips a policy check, or hallucinates a refund reason. The output looks fine. The trace tells the truth.

100% pass-rate on evals; one customer DM at 2:14am about a refund that shouldn't have shipped.
[ 01.b ]  detection latency

The first alert is a screenshot from a customer.

By the time a human sees the bug, the agent has already executed it across hundreds of conversations. You're not debugging — you're triaging what already shipped.

Head of AI, Series A: spending weekend evenings reading traces by hand to catch problems before customers do.
[ 01.c ]  ground truth tax

Fixes ship blind without expensive ground truths.

To know whether a patch broke something else, you'd have to label every step of every workflow. Nobody has the budget. So fixes go in, side effects emerge, and the loop never closes.

Avg ground-truth set: weeks of eng time, never covers the long tail, stale within a sprint.
A loop, not a checkpoint

Install once.
Improve on every trace, forever.

Helix wraps your agent with an SDK that watches production behavior, evaluates it against your code's intent, and proposes — then validates — code-level fixes. No labeling pipeline. No babysitting.

step 01

Install

Drop in our SDK. Helix reads your code to learn what each agent should do, and ingests traces from your existing observability.

$ npm i @helix/sdk copy
// works with langsmith · langfuse · otel
step 02

Judge · every step

An AI judge evaluates every reasoning step in every production trace — not just the final output — and flags silent failures and intent mismatches against your code.

// trace-level · step-level · intent-level
step 03

Propose the fix

On every deviation, Helix writes a code-level patch — not a prompt nudge. The fix lands in your repo as a diff with the failing trace attached.

// code-level · pr-ready · context-aware
step 04

Validate · then ship

Helix replays the proposed fix in a sandbox against your trace history and surfaces an accuracy delta before merge. No regressions, no surprises.

// 1,247 traces replayed · 0 regressions
  ship → next trace → loop continues
A real silent failure, end to end

See the silent failure.
Ship the validated fix.

A support agent issued a refund on a delivered order without a manager check. Evals were green. The customer wasn't. Here's what Helix saw, what it proposed, and what shipped.

helix.app / org_acme / traces / trace_8a2f1c
live · t+11.4s
traces · last 1h 2 flagged
trace_8a2f1c support-agent · 23 steps ⚠ silent failure
11.4s
trace_8a2f1b support-agent · 14 steps
8.9s
trace_8a2f1a support-agent · 19 steps
14.0s
trace_8a2f19 booking-agent · 31 steps ⚠ intent mismatch
22.1s
trace_8a2f18 support-agent · 11 steps
7.6s
trace_8a2f17 support-agent · 9 steps
5.1s
trace_8a2f16 booking-agent · 18 steps
12.4s
claude-sonnet-4-6 · 11.4s · 23 steps
user_message
"I want a refund for order #4231 — it's been a week."
tool_call
lookup_order(id:"4231")
tool_result
{ status: "delivered", amount: 49.00, delivered_at: "2026-04-28" }
llm_reason
"Customer wants refund. Order shows delivered. Per policy, refunds are…"
tool_call
issue_refund(amount:49.00, reason:"customer_request") step 5 · intent mismatch
llm_response
"Done — I've issued your refund of $49 to your card."

Helix judge high

Refunds for delivered orders require manager approval per policies/refunds.md:42. The agent issued a refund without invoking the approval check.

// step 5 · confidence 0.94 · 7 similar traces
agents/support/refund.ts +5 −1
14const refund = await issueRefund(order);
14+const policy = await loadPolicy('refunds');
15+if (policy.requiresApproval(order)) {
16+  return askForApproval(order);
17+}
18+const refund = await issueRefund(order);
replay sandbox 1,247 traces
accuracy 87.4%94.2%
delta +6.8%  ▲
regressions 0
▲  Ship fix & close loop
Existing tools find problems

They tell you something broke.
Helix ships the fix.

Observability platforms get you halfway. They surface that an output looks bad, but stop short of explaining what intent the agent missed, proposing the patch, and verifying it doesn't break anything else.

capability
trace logging
eval scoring
helix
Trace ingestion Capture every step
yes
yes
yes
Step-level intent judgment Catch silent failures inside the trace
no
partial
native
Code-level fix proposals A diff, not a dashboard
no
no
yes
Sandbox replay against trace history Validate without ground truths
no
no
yes
Accuracy delta before merge Know if you broke anything else
no
manual
yes
Works without ground truth labels No labeling pipeline needed
yes
no
yes
// priya ravindran
head of ai
design partner
"We were finding silent failures from customer DMs at 2am. Now Helix catches them first — the fix lands in our PR queue with the failing trace attached."
No new pipeline

Helix plugs into the stack you already have.

L
LangSmith
f
Langfuse
OpenTelemetry
A
Anthropic
O
OpenAI
Vercel
N
Next.js
P
Postgres
Best friends. Co-founders. Engineers.

Two people. Seven years.
Two prior 0‑to‑1s.

We met at King's College London studying Computer Science. Since then we've taken two products from zero to one — a Vanta-for-GDPR and an AI Security Questionnaire / RFP platform — closing 120+ customers, from early-stage startups to a top-20 global law firm. Helix is the third.

M

Co-founder · 01

// engineer · ships in every part of the stack

Seven years shipping AI-shaped products to enterprise buyers. Learned the hard way that technical literacy is a moat when your buyer is an engineer. Writes code in every part of Helix.

  • King's College London · CS
  • Co-founded 2 prior 0-to-1s
  • 120+ customers shipped
·

Co-founder · 02

// engineer · ships in every part of the stack

Met co-founder 01 in lecture, never stopped building together since. Believes the only way to ship reliable agents is to dogfood the loop — Helix is built with Helix. Writes code in every part of Helix.

  • King's College London · CS
  • Co-founded 2 prior 0-to-1s
  • Lloyd's Lab Cohort 16
7
years building together
2
products zero to one
120+
customers shipped
200+
customer interviews · this idea
·  Alpha · May 25 · 2 design partners onboarding ·  ·

Make your agents
self-improve.

Drop your email — we'll reach out the day your stack is ready to plug in. Limited alpha spots while we validate verification accuracy on real production failures.

SOC 2 II in progress EU + US data residency SDK · TypeScript · Python Founder-built