Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

We launched Agentic Batch Changes this week: the very first coding agent with outcome-based pricing. You only pay when you merge a PR, not per token. Despite the innovation in other verticals—Sierra, Fin, Decagon, and more all charge per resolution—dev tools have remained firmly tied to seat- and usage-based...

23,917 views • 11 days ago •via X (Twitter)

13 Comments

Dan Adler's profile picture
Dan Adler11 days ago

And read more about the Agentic Batch Changes product here

Dan Adler's profile picture
Dan Adler11 days ago

As much as I like to believe that this is the future of the industry, there is a reason we can do this while others cannot. Most coding agents were designed to be general-purpose problem solvers, just as likely to be used for vacation planning or open-ended exploration as executing a code change. That makes ROI an impossible question. Agentic Batch Changes is a special-purpose agent, scoped deliberately in its harness, its system prompt, its permissions, and its tools, to solve one concrete problem. We built it to minimize cost at scale, rather than paying for an agent to do the same job a hundred or a thousand times over.

Chen's profile picture
Chen11 days ago

one agent that works beat five clever ones here

Brian Miller's profile picture
Brian Miller11 days ago

bold, this is real courage

Dan Adler's profile picture
Dan Adler11 days ago

Thanks!

Ian Andrews's profile picture
Ian Andrews11 days ago

How do your customers forecast their spend under this model? This is the most frequent question I get on outcome based pricing topic

Dan Adler's profile picture
Dan Adler11 days ago

It's not so hard for us. The product is used for migrations (library updates, security incidents, refactoring, etc). X repos covered, Y large-scale changes planned this Q, easy to estimate. The downside is more "yet another pricing model" than hard to predict.

pwguler's profile picture
pwguler11 days ago

per-merged-pr rewards tiny prs: the cheapest fee is a one line change nobody argues with. if the goal is incentives in lockstep, the contract needs the revert and re-open rate too, otherwise the metric is merge count

Dan Adler's profile picture
Dan Adler11 days ago

Definitely will be watching revert rates (it's just hard to track this). Happy to refund reverts for any customer who runs into them. We stand behind the results.

pwguler's profile picture
pwguler11 days ago

the hard part is attribution, not willingness. a revert three weeks later rarely points back at the pr. tag every agent pr and both revert and rot become priceable, including the dead code that never gets reverted and never gets billed

Dan Adler's profile picture
Dan Adler11 days ago

tracking is a challenge for sure. But we're taking a bet. And they would have paid for those tokens anyway. Won't keep our customers long if they question the quality.

Supportman's profile picture
Supportman11 days ago

Per-resolution pricing only works if "resolved" is shared. In support that definition is contested: no-reply closes, soft handoffs, and reopen within 48h all look green until you sample them. Who owns the definition when the invoice depends on it?

Winston's profile picture
Winston10 days ago

What happens if clients tell your agent not to merge, then go dig up the old branch and merge it?

Related Videos