As of July 19, 2026

A decision instrument for the agentic developer tools landscape.

Six-dimension, evidence-graded scoring of agentic developer tools. We publish a written movement trigger for every score, so readers know what would move a tool up or down before it happens. Refreshed weekly, with caps and rationale public, and willing to flag negative signals that vendor-curated landscapes will not.

86Tools tracked
4Validated
20Assessed
43Tracked
24Briefings published

This isn't a tech radar.

Most landscapes show you what exists. We show you what is shifting and what would shift it next. Three primitives keep the radar from drifting into commodity territory.

Forward-looking movement triggers

Every score ships with a written-down answer: what would move this tool up, and what would move it down. Not 'watch for changes' — specific, falsifiable thresholds.

Caps as policy primitives

Fourteen named, numbered caps mechanically bound dimension scores. When governance is capped at 12, the cap ID is listed and the rule is public. Auditable, not hand-wavy.

Evidence is graded

Every tool carries an Evidence Grade (A/B/C) reflecting hands-on vs. research depth. Vendor-only benchmarks get labeled. The grade tells you how much weight to put on the call.

Latest briefing

2026-W29: July 13, 2026

Browse archive (24)

The single new thing this week isn't a model — it's a headcount. TCS committed to standing up **5,900–8,900 forward-deployed engineers** embedded with clients, explicitly naming OpenAI, Anthropic, and Microsoft as the competition. The "embed AI-native engineers with clients"...

Read full briefing

Follow the radar

Weekly briefings and signal-level changes — check back Mondays.

Refreshed weekly off versioned snapshotsBuild 2026-07-1986 tools across 4 categories