I wanted to give this a try, but it immediately asks for authority to "Act on your behalf" on GitHub. That's not something that I'm going to grant to an unfamiliar agent.
It would make a lot more sense to me if you provided a lighter "intro" version, even if that means it can only run on public repos.
I looked for an explanation of what the tool does on my behalf on your site but didn't see anything.
I guess I expected on the homepage or maybe "About" but I was looking for something related to whether you open PRs on my behalf given that OAuth prompt.
I think adding that or some explanation during onboarding about the permissions might help.
That's good to know, but I would still suggest an on-ramp that only uses GitHub for authentication (i.e. no permissions needed). To that end, it would be nice if I could also authenticate with other OAuth providers instead, like Google, etc.
Again, I understand that this would limit me to scanning public repos, but that would be fine.
Other auth providers for sure. We'll be adding shortly.
Using an alternate auth provider won't even prevent you from scanning non-public GitHub code. There's a GitHub OAuth App just for auth (which is what you're seeing here), and a separate GitHub App that you need to install either way to give Detail access to the right repos. We can swap out the former for Google/Okta/pw if you want to avoid this warning. GitHub Apps (the half that manages repo access) have a much finer grained permissions model.
On the landing page I see full names and pictures of customers but not any information about the founders and/or shareholders. I click on "about us" and "privacy" and "terms" and "trust center" and I cannot figure out: What is the name of the company, where is it located, who will be having access to my data. For a security-related startup if such information is missing it's a big red flag.
Also unfortunately the animation on the landing page makes the whole website quite slow.
Thanks for your reply. As I said, on your website there is no address, there is no legal entity name, there is no company registration number. You could sit in north korea for all I know.
Now I spotted in the last sentence of your "about us" that "We're based in SF". Oh and only now I see on the "terms" page has "15. Contact information
qqbot, Inc
3624 16th St
San Francisco, CA 94114
Email: support@detail.dev"
Why not put that address into the footer or add an imprint section to the website? It's such a quick win to establish trust. Also if guillermo rauch is an angel investor why mention him at the last sentence of the "about us" page and not in the middle of your landing page. Why did guillermo not post a testimonial that add to the landing page? Did he not like the product? Or did he not review the product?
PS: When I search for "qqbot" on kagi a lot of chinese-language results show up. Is the company affiliated with china?
Sorry for challenging you. I wish you good luck if your claims hold it is a worthwhile effort.
$30/committer/month, while only running scans biweekly, not even including "Enterprise" pricing, is really, really steep and will be a big barrier to adoption in larger enterprises with many engineers. You're basically asking enterprises to take the $30/committer/month pricing that they're spending on something like GitLab Premium, and double it, for bug reports? They may be great bug reports, but if it's difficult enough to get teams to merge automated MRs from tools like Dependabot/Renovate, what makes you so confident that a large enterprise customer will be so willing to add Another Tool that opens More MRs that require engineers to spend More Time Reviewing that may or may not have anything to do with shipping more features out the door?
Please consider a pricing model that's closer to bug bounties. There's clearly a working pricing model where companies are willing to pay bounties for discovered vulnerabilities. Your tool finds vulnerabilities (among other classes of bugs). Why not a pricing model where customers agree up-front to pay per bug your model finds? There are definitely some tricky parts to that model - you need an automated way of grading/scoring the bugs you find, since critical-severity bugs will be worth more (and be more interesting to customers) compared to low-severity bugs, and some customers will surely appeal some of the automatic scores - but could you make it work? Customers could then have more control over scaling up usage of Detail (adding slowly to more repositories), including capping how many bugs of each severity they would like reports for (to limit their spend), allowing customers to slowly add more repositories and run scans more frequently to find more bugs as they get more proven value from the tool.
I played around with Detail recently and it was super helpful to point me directly to the code causing some bugs that I know I had, but wasn't sure about the root cause.
Waxing philosophical a bit, I think tools like these are going to be super helpful as our collective understanding of the codebases we own decreases over time due to the proliferation of AI generated code. I'm not making a value judgement here, just pointing out that as we understand codebases less, tools that help us track down the root causes of bugs will be more important.
How do you define "merge-quality" and how to you determine a PR is of merge quality? Particularly when you are generating a lot of them with no human oversight involved?
Does this work for cross-compiled projects as well? Do you only require code that's buildable on the host or also runnable? How would it behave for a firmware codebase?
We've run it on a few firmware repos and gotten good results. A lot of firmware code tends to have really poor type-safety which means lots of low-hanging bugs.
We should be able to handle cross-compilation. Want to try it? Ping me in any direct channel (dan@detail.dev / @danlovesproofs) and we can keep an eye on your repo.
Github only for now. Out of curiosity, is yours on gitlab? Something else?
We should be able to find something interesting in most codebases, as long as there's some plausible way to build and test the code and the codebase is big enough. (Below ~250 files the results get iffy.) We've just tested it a lot more thoroughly on app backends, because that's what we know best.
> Out of curiosity, is yours on gitlab? Something else?
Something else, it's a self-hosted Git server similar to GitHub, GitLab, etc. We have multiple repos well clear of 1k files. Almost none of it is JavaScript or TypeScript or anything like that. None of our own code is public.
So, this is only for codebases hosted on Github, right? Any plans for folks not in that ecosystem? And which languages do you support? The examples show Go, (Type|Java)Script, Python, Rust and Zig, which is rather diverse, but lacks some typical 'enterprise' options. The examples look nice and quite different from the usual static analyzer slop, so that is welcome!
My immediate personal use case would be C# on a self-hosted Gitea instance.
Realistically, anything paid would need to be fully self-hostable, though. There's a bunch of Java codebases that I work on that would benefit from something like this, but they're all behind two or three layers of Citrix...
I wanted to give this a try, but it immediately asks for authority to "Act on your behalf" on GitHub. That's not something that I'm going to grant to an unfamiliar agent.
It would make a lot more sense to me if you provided a lighter "intro" version, even if that means it can only run on public repos.
As far as we can tell this is a github-ism, and any OAuth permission is a form of "acting on your behalf": https://dappling.medium.com/a-github-app-would-like-to-act-o...
I looked for an explanation of what the tool does on my behalf on your site but didn't see anything.
I guess I expected on the homepage or maybe "About" but I was looking for something related to whether you open PRs on my behalf given that OAuth prompt.
I think adding that or some explanation during onboarding about the permissions might help.
That's good to know, but I would still suggest an on-ramp that only uses GitHub for authentication (i.e. no permissions needed). To that end, it would be nice if I could also authenticate with other OAuth providers instead, like Google, etc.
Again, I understand that this would limit me to scanning public repos, but that would be fine.
Other auth providers for sure. We'll be adding shortly.
Using an alternate auth provider won't even prevent you from scanning non-public GitHub code. There's a GitHub OAuth App just for auth (which is what you're seeing here), and a separate GitHub App that you need to install either way to give Detail access to the right repos. We can swap out the former for Google/Okta/pw if you want to avoid this warning. GitHub Apps (the half that manages repo access) have a much finer grained permissions model.
On the landing page I see full names and pictures of customers but not any information about the founders and/or shareholders. I click on "about us" and "privacy" and "terms" and "trust center" and I cannot figure out: What is the name of the company, where is it located, who will be having access to my data. For a security-related startup if such information is missing it's a big red flag.
Also unfortunately the animation on the landing page makes the whole website quite slow.
Hi bflesch, fair point – our About Us page has a lot about what we think and not about... us!
I'm the founder. Previously I was at Heap for nine years. There's a company LinkedIn with the rest of the team: https://www.linkedin.com/company/detail-dev/
We're located in SF. The About Us page lists some of our angel investors at the bottom.
Regarding security in particular, there's a lot more info in our Trust Center: https://trust.detail.dev/
If anything else seems conspicuously missing, please flag. In all likelihood it's omitted without intent.
Thanks for your reply. As I said, on your website there is no address, there is no legal entity name, there is no company registration number. You could sit in north korea for all I know.
Now I spotted in the last sentence of your "about us" that "We're based in SF". Oh and only now I see on the "terms" page has "15. Contact information qqbot, Inc 3624 16th St San Francisco, CA 94114 Email: support@detail.dev"
Why not put that address into the footer or add an imprint section to the website? It's such a quick win to establish trust. Also if guillermo rauch is an angel investor why mention him at the last sentence of the "about us" page and not in the middle of your landing page. Why did guillermo not post a testimonial that add to the landing page? Did he not like the product? Or did he not review the product?
PS: When I search for "qqbot" on kagi a lot of chinese-language results show up. Is the company affiliated with china?
Sorry for challenging you. I wish you good luck if your claims hold it is a worthwhile effort.
$30/committer/month, while only running scans biweekly, not even including "Enterprise" pricing, is really, really steep and will be a big barrier to adoption in larger enterprises with many engineers. You're basically asking enterprises to take the $30/committer/month pricing that they're spending on something like GitLab Premium, and double it, for bug reports? They may be great bug reports, but if it's difficult enough to get teams to merge automated MRs from tools like Dependabot/Renovate, what makes you so confident that a large enterprise customer will be so willing to add Another Tool that opens More MRs that require engineers to spend More Time Reviewing that may or may not have anything to do with shipping more features out the door?
Please consider a pricing model that's closer to bug bounties. There's clearly a working pricing model where companies are willing to pay bounties for discovered vulnerabilities. Your tool finds vulnerabilities (among other classes of bugs). Why not a pricing model where customers agree up-front to pay per bug your model finds? There are definitely some tricky parts to that model - you need an automated way of grading/scoring the bugs you find, since critical-severity bugs will be worth more (and be more interesting to customers) compared to low-severity bugs, and some customers will surely appeal some of the automatic scores - but could you make it work? Customers could then have more control over scaling up usage of Detail (adding slowly to more repositories), including capping how many bugs of each severity they would like reports for (to limit their spend), allowing customers to slowly add more repositories and run scans more frequently to find more bugs as they get more proven value from the tool.
We've been thinking about this too. We have some ideas. Thanks for the comment, in any case – gave us a lot to chew on.
I played around with Detail recently and it was super helpful to point me directly to the code causing some bugs that I know I had, but wasn't sure about the root cause.
Waxing philosophical a bit, I think tools like these are going to be super helpful as our collective understanding of the codebases we own decreases over time due to the proliferation of AI generated code. I'm not making a value judgement here, just pointing out that as we understand codebases less, tools that help us track down the root causes of bugs will be more important.
How do you define "merge-quality" and how to you determine a PR is of merge quality? Particularly when you are generating a lot of them with no human oversight involved?
Got redirected to a 404 after signing in with GitHub:
https://app.detail.dev/onboarding
Fix is deploying, sorry about that!
Does this work for cross-compiled projects as well? Do you only require code that's buildable on the host or also runnable? How would it behave for a firmware codebase?
We've run it on a few firmware repos and gotten good results. A lot of firmware code tends to have really poor type-safety which means lots of low-hanging bugs.
We should be able to handle cross-compilation. Want to try it? Ping me in any direct channel (dan@detail.dev / @danlovesproofs) and we can keep an eye on your repo.
How does this work if your repos aren't on GitHub? And what if your code has nothing to do with backend web apps?
Github only for now. Out of curiosity, is yours on gitlab? Something else?
We should be able to find something interesting in most codebases, as long as there's some plausible way to build and test the code and the codebase is big enough. (Below ~250 files the results get iffy.) We've just tested it a lot more thoroughly on app backends, because that's what we know best.
> Out of curiosity, is yours on gitlab? Something else?
Something else, it's a self-hosted Git server similar to GitHub, GitLab, etc. We have multiple repos well clear of 1k files. Almost none of it is JavaScript or TypeScript or anything like that. None of our own code is public.
Looks interesting, but I self host so it would have to work with plain Git URLs.
So, this is only for codebases hosted on Github, right? Any plans for folks not in that ecosystem? And which languages do you support? The examples show Go, (Type|Java)Script, Python, Rust and Zig, which is rather diverse, but lacks some typical 'enterprise' options. The examples look nice and quite different from the usual static analyzer slop, so that is welcome!
Just github for now, but purely for reasons of plumbing. We'll add gitlab and others.
We support java, c/c++, kotlin, ruby, and swift as well. Did you have something specific in mind?
My immediate personal use case would be C# on a self-hosted Gitea instance.
Realistically, anything paid would need to be fully self-hostable, though. There's a bunch of Java codebases that I work on that would benefit from something like this, but they're all behind two or three layers of Citrix...
Looking forward to this working with Gitlab!
Very impressed with the results on our repo. Great stuff for managing all of the AI slop.