Claude Code vs TimetoTest
Write the change. Test the app.

Claude Code writes the change. TimetoTest signs in, uses your app like your users do, and shows you what broke before you merge.

Different jobs in the same workflow

Claude Code works on the repository. TimetoTest works on the running app.

Feature
TimetoTest
Claude Code
Writes and edits code
TimetoTest tests the change; it does not write your features
Tests the running app from a plain-English description
Claude Code can do this when you set up browser tooling and prompt it each time
Signs in and uses the app like a user
Runs automatically on every pull request
Claude Code reviews PRs through its GitHub integration; it reads the code rather than using the app
Shared run record with a video of browser runs
Separate from the tool that wrote the change
When Claude Code wrote the change
The honest breakdown

The coding agent and the testing teammate

Most teams using TimetoTest also use a coding agent. Here's how the two fit together.

01

Claude Code (Anthropic)

Claude Code is Anthropic's coding agent. It works in your terminal, editor and GitHub: it reads the repository, writes and edits code, runs commands and tests, and can review pull requests.

It's one of the strongest tools available for writing a change. Asked to, it can also write tests and run them, or drive a browser if you give it the tooling.

02

TimetoTest

TimetoTest gives your team AI teammates that test the app. Give them a staging URL and say what should work in plain English. They sign in, use it just like your users do, and show you what broke. No scripts.

The same agent can run every pull request in a sandbox and post its findings on the PR before anyone merges. Each run leaves a report, and browser runs include a video anyone on the team can watch.

03

Using them together

Use Claude Code to write the change. Use TimetoTest to check the flows your users depend on still work after it.

The more code your team ships with Claude Code, the more value a separate check on the running app adds.

The bottom line

Claude Code and TimetoTest

Can't I just ask Claude Code to test my app?

You can, and for quick checks many developers do. Claude Code can run your test suite and, with browser tooling you set up, click through a page. TimetoTest is built for doing that on every change, for the whole team: plain-English checks that run automatically, a sandbox per pull request, real sign-in flows, and a shared record with a video of each browser run.

Is TimetoTest a replacement for Claude Code?

No. TimetoTest does not write your features. Keep using Claude Code to write and change code. TimetoTest is the step after it: it uses the running app and tells you whether the flows your users depend on still work.

Claude Code already reviews pull requests. Why add TimetoTest?

Claude Code's review reads the diff and reasons about it. TimetoTest runs the changed behavior against the app and reports what a user would hit. They catch different problems, and many teams will want both.

Why does it matter that TimetoTest didn't write the code?

When the same agent writes a change, writes its tests and reviews the result, every check shares the same assumptions. TimetoTest is a separate check that judges the change only by what the running app does.

Your coding agent writes the change.
TimetoTest checks it works.

Give TimetoTest your staging URL, say what should work, and watch it run.

No credit card requiredWorks with GitHub & GitLab