Delivery leaks between the tools that manage it.
Garlavatch is four products for the four stages of shipping software. Two are running today; we're building the rest in the open.
Every team loses good decisions between meetings. Someone agrees to fix the bug, someone else owns the deadline, and by the next standup half of it has evaporated into a notebook nobody reopens.
That gap isn't a meetings problem. It repeats at every stage: the plan drifts from the code, the code drifts from what is actually running, and the bill arrives with no explanation attached. Each stage has its own tool, and none of them talk.
So we didn't build one app with four tabs. We build one product per stage, on a shared workspace, and let them read each other's context. Scrum knows who has shipped this kind of code. Graph knows what the system is doing right now. Together they answer questions neither could answer alone.
Where we actually are.
- ScrumMeetings in, tasks out.Available now
- GraphYour system, live on one map.Early access
- DevOpsA second pair of hands on the pipeline.Coming soon
- FinOpsCloud spend that explains itself.Coming soon
What we hold to.
- 01
Honest by default
We never show invented data. If a product has nothing to show yet, it says so. It's also why two of our four still say “not built yet” instead of quietly appearing in a feature list.
- 02
One workspace, not four logins
Roles, invites and connections belong to the team, not to a product. Adding the next one should be a toggle, not another onboarding.
- 03
Read the work, not just the ticket
The interesting signal is in the meeting and in the repository. A tool that only reads the board is guessing at half the picture.