How it worksFeaturesIndustriesPricingSign in
For product & engineering teams

Argue the design before you build it.

The expensive mistakes in product and mindering are decided long before they ship. Wavn gives teams a place to pressure-test architecture, trade-offs, and priorities across independent minds, and keep the decision record the next team will thank you for.

Most costly mindering mistakes are decision mistakes: the architecture chosen without arguing the alternative, the trade-off nobody wrote down, the priority call no one can reconstruct six months later. Wavn is where those decisions get argued properly and kept. It doesn't write your code, it sharpens the thinking around the calls that code can't take back.

The decisions you live with

Where the cost of getting it wrong is real.

Which architecture to commit to

Choosing the design you'll live with, when each option has a champion and the cost of reversing it later is high.

The trade-off you'll have to defend

Naming what you're giving up, latency, simplicity, flexibility, clearly enough that it survives the next review.

What to build, and what to cut

Prioritising a roadmap when everything has a sponsor and the team's time is the real constraint.

Why we built it this way

Keeping the rationale behind a design call, so the next minder inherits the reasoning, not just the result.

How Wavn fits the work

Your workflow, with the thinking kept.

Every option gets a champion

Debate

Have the minds argue competing designs at full strength, including the one the team is quietly avoiding, so no approach dies un-argued.

Find the assumption under the design

Converge

Converge surfaces the shared assumption the options depend on, so you test the one belief that actually decides the architecture.

An ADR that writes itself

Decide

Lock the call as a decision block with the alternatives and trade-offs kept, your architecture decision record, captured at the moment of choosing.

Why we chose this last time

Memory

Recall prior design decisions so the team builds on its own judgment instead of relitigating settled architecture.

Not one model's opinion of your stack

Independence

Three minds mean the design critique isn't shaped by a single provider's bias, and never OpenAI.

See it work

One product & engineering project, walked live.

This is Refactor or build on top, stage by stage. Click any step on the line and the screen follows.

Refactor or build on top · Argued
ShareJourney
The core service: refactor properly, or build on top and ship?
Wave · asked all 3 minds · Debate
Claude
The refactor is six weeks honest, ten realistic. Build-on-top ships in two but compounds the debt.
Gemini
Migration risk concentrates in the auth layer; three comparable migrations broke exactly there.
Cohere
Both cases assume the scaling deadline is real. Nobody in the thread has verified it.
Converge2 agree · 1 contested
Agreed
Auth migration is the concentrated risk
Both timeline estimates are optimistic
Contested
Whether the scaling deadline actually binds
Unsupported
Flagged claims, named out loud

Three minds take positions and argue them properly. Converge maps the real shape.

The Guide

Deciding is half the work. Wavn walks the rest.

A thought caught on your phone becomes a project. Three minds argue it, the call is locked with its dissent, and then the road opens: the accounts you'll need in plain words, a spec in one click, documents and decks and spreadsheets generated from the decision, Claude connected to build the real thing, and the launch on a Schedule that briefs you before every date. The Journey report can replay all of it, months later, when someone asks why.

IdeaArguedDecided4Set up5Spec6Built7Scheduled
Illustrative scenario

A scaling SaaS platform

Software · Distributed across Europe and South Asia

A platform team has to choose between a major refactor and a build-on-top approach for a core service. Two senior minders each favour a different path, the debate keeps going in circles in Slack, and the decision keeps slipping while the cost of indecision grows.

In Wavn
  • 01Both approaches become blocks on a shared canvas, with each minder's notes attached.
  • 02A wave runs Debate, the minds argue refactor vs. build-on-top, hard, from both sides.
  • 03Converge shows both paths hinge on the same scaling assumption, and flags a migration risk the thread had missed.
  • 04The lead locks a Decide block: the chosen path, the rejected one and why, the trade-off accepted, and the open risk to watch.
The outcome

The circular Slack debate ended with a written decision the whole team had seen the reasoning behind. When a new minder joined two quarters later and asked 'why is it built this way?', the answer was a block, not a shrug.

This scenario is illustrative, a composite of how product & engineering teams work, not a named client. Wavn is invite-only and we don't publish customer names without permission.

Wavn won't architect your system, that judgment is yours. It makes sure the call was argued, not defaulted into, and keeps the reasoning so the decision survives the people who made it.

Bring it to your product & engineering team.

Wavn is invite-only while we grow it carefully. Walk the road and see it for yourself.