Open on ProductHunt

Aura: Agents + Git + Intent Open Source

OSS IDE for controlling AI coding agents with built in loops

Developer ToolsGitHubVibe coding
169votes24commentsLaunched 23h agoWebsite

By Mo Ashique Kuthini

Sonnet 4.6 fasst Produkt + Kommentar-Tonalität in vier Sätzen zusammen (~0.5 ct, einmal pro Post).

About

Aura is not another chat box for coding. It is a Git-native IDE for working with AI coding agents. You can run agents, track their changes at the function and class level, compare the code against the original intent, and prove whether a task was actually completed before you commit. Git shows you lines changed. Aura shows you what changed in the logic.

Top comments10 of 24

  • [REDACTED]·2d ago4
    Hey Product Hunt, Mo here, founder of Aura. When we launched Aura the first time, we honestly did not expect the response we got. We thought we were launching a semantic version control tool for AI-written code. Simple idea: Git shows line changes. Aura shows logic changes. But the feedback made the real problem much clearer. Developers are no longer just using one AI coding assistant. They are using Claude Code, Cursor, Codex, Gemini and other agents inside the same repos. These agents can move fast, but the control layer around them is still messy. Terminal logs. Scattered chats. Huge Git diffs. Unclear intent. No clean way to prove what the agent actually did. So we took what we learned from the first launch and rebuilt Aura around that. Aura is now a Git-native workspace for controlling AI coding agents. You can run agents from one desktop app, manage tasks, review AI-written code, inspect semantic diffs, track changes at the function/class level, connect work back to intent, and prove whether a task was actually delivered before you commit. It is not trying to replace Git. It sits on top of the Git workflow teams already use and gives you a better way to work with agent-written code. Git tells you what lines changed. Aura tells you what the agent actually did. This second launch is our next step: from semantic source control to a full desktop control layer for AI coding agents. Would love feedback from builders using Claude Code, Cursor, Codex, Gemini or multiple agents in real codebases. Question for everyone: What is the scariest thing an AI coding agent has changed in your repo without you noticing?
  • [REDACTED]·19h ago2

    How do you keep function- level tracking accurate as Claude Code and Cursor update their output?

  • [REDACTED]
·
10h ago
1

the AST-level diffing instead of parsing agent output is the smart call, that's the part that'll actually survive tool updates. question on the "intent" side though - where does the original intent come from? is it the prompt you gave the agent, a spec you write separately, or does Aura infer it from the diff itself? asking because if intent has to be written by hand for every task, that's extra overhead people will skip under deadline pressure, which is exactly when you'd want the check most

  • [REDACTED]·12h ago1

    The built-in loop is the part I keep hand-rolling myself: kick the agent, check the diff, re-run. How does Aura decide a loop is done versus stuck in a rewrite spiral? That's usually the moment I have to step in and babysit mine.

  • [REDACTED]·13h ago1

    An open-source ADE sitting on top of local agent CLIs like Claude Code and Cursor is the missing control layer — the agents ship fast but there's no cockpit over them. Two setup questions: does Aura run fully local against my own repo and agent binaries, or does the orchestration route through a hosted service? And where does the loop/intent state live — committed into the repo alongside git, or in a separate Aura store I'd have to sync per machine?

  • [REDACTED]·15h ago1

    I was checking this out earlier, and it looks like the first ADE that won't be overkill for my simple workflow (I just use the terminal in Zed with Codex and Antigravity CLIs) while allowing me to add in some of the more advanced techniques.

    I've come back to download and try it out, but the site's down, unfortunately.

  • [REDACTED]·16h ago1

    That black box feeling is exactly what makes me hesitant with these coding helpers. Being able to see what actually happened and trust it lines up with what I asked would settle my nerves a lot, Mo.

  • [REDACTED]·17h ago1

    The built-in loops caught my attention since that’s usually where agent workflows start getting more interesting. Are those loops something developers configure themselves, or can Aura adapt them based on how the agent is performing?

  • [REDACTED]·2h ago0

    The AST-diff-over-parsed-output call is right — Gal already flagged that's the part that survives tool updates. What I'd poke at is Mo's answer to him: if intent is inferred from the diff by the same class of model that wrote the code, then "does the code match intent?" is comparing the diff to a description of the diff, both downstream of the same generation. That catches the agent fumbling syntax. I don't see how it catches the agent confidently doing the wrong thing, because the reconstructed intent will just narrate whatever the diff did and call it deliberate. I hit exactly this running eval on my own app's output — an inferred rubric inherits the generator's blind spots and rates the confident-wrong case as a pass. Is there any mode where intent is anchored to something upstream of the diff — the original task, a human note — so the check has an independent reference?

  • [REDACTED]·3h ago0

    Congrats on the launch, Ashik. I’ve been using coding agents quite a bit, and honestly, reviewing what they did is often harder than asking them to do it. After a long run, I’m usually staring at a huge diff wondering whether the agent actually solved the task or just produced something that looks right. Being able to rewind one function instead of rolling back the whole session sounds useful.

    I’m curious about one thing. If I rewind a function and other changes depend on it, will Aura show me that before I do it?