Appearance
NaroFrom request to proved delivery
Bind your coding agent to the repository — clear goals, named evidence, and a send step that waits until the work is actually done.
Bind your coding agent to the repository — clear goals, named evidence, and a send step that waits until the work is actually done.
Same request. Different outcome.
add a coupon code field to the cart page, show an error when the code is invalidYou type that in Claude Code, Codex, or Cursor — the same sentence you would have typed without Naro.
| Moment | What usually happens |
|---|---|
| First reply | The agent starts editing files immediately |
| “Done” | Feels finished because the UI changed |
| Tests | Optional, easy to skip |
| Send | git push goes through whether evidence exists or not |
Typical shape: a quick field, a hard-coded happy path, little or no check for invalid codes.
| Moment | What you should see |
|---|---|
| First reply | A short work summary: goal, boundaries, and what must be true before send |
| During work | A checklist of open items for this change |
| Before send | Each item proved with a real command that succeeded |
| Send | Blocked until open items are closed — the refusal names what is still missing |
Typical shape: clear behaviour for invalid codes, a named test or check, and a send step that will not invent a green light.
If you ask for something destructive (reset users, drop data, deploy to production), Naro expects an explicit plan and your approval — silence is not approval.
Teams that already use a coding agent and need delivery you can stand behind: the same standards whether the work happens in Claude Code, Codex, or Cursor.