srinivaspadmana

The fully automated feedback on every PR is the useful part, but a bug-hunting agent needs its own measurement. Plant a handful of known defects in a staging copy of an app, such as a disabled button state or a wrong total after a coupon, and check how many the agent reports across repeated runs on the same build. If it finds a defect one run and misses it the next, the run-to-run variance matters more than the headline catch rate. I'd also want it to report false alarms separately, so a reviewer can see how much time each PR comment actually costs.

One thing I'd want to know about a self-built emulator is who checks it. If the same model that writes the firmware also writes the peripheral models from the datasheet, a misreading of, say, an SPI FIFO flush or a timer prescaler gets baked into both sides, and the tests pass for the wrong reason. The errata-level quirks the founders mention are exactly what a datasheet-derived model won't contain. The practical test is differential: capture a few traces from a real board (logic analyzer on the bus), replay the same stimulus in the emulator, and diff the cycle timing and register state. Without that, I'd treat green results from a homemade sim as unverified.