Problem
Try to keep
the whole story.
A single issue crosses people, tools, AI and code. Explore what it takes to preserve the evidence, reach a shared understanding and verify the actual result.
Free plan · Works with Claude Code and Codex and others
Everything exists.
Nothing is together.
Tap the pieces of one issue to assemble a shared record. In normal workflows, each lives somewhere else—and the missing piece can change the whole interpretation.
0 / 6 collectedOne issue.
Six different places.
The record is missing its original evidence.
Pieces you collect will appear here, without losing their original source.
Conceptual interaction, not a real Aproow product screen.
Same issue.
Different missing pieces.
Business understands the intent. Engineering needs reproduction details. AI needs explicit project context. Changing the viewer doesn’t magically fill the gaps.
Why won’t
Save work on mobile?
“I just want people to save their changes. The button doesn’t seem to respond.”
- Focus
- User-facing outcome
- Knows
- What users are trying to do
- Missing
- Technical reproduction
- Wants
- A visible, reliable fix
A strong LLM doesn’t fix
a fragmented workflow.
Same request. Same coding agent. Change only the information it receives. Watch a plausible answer become more grounded — while review and verification still require a shared process.
“The Save button doesn’t work on mobile. Fix it.”
What can the agent actually see?
“I’ll replace the button handler.”
The request does not establish where the failure occurs or what successful behavior should look like.
Even with more context, the model doesn’t own the review, execution or QA handoff.
A conceptual comparison, not a live model call or a claim about model accuracy. Providing relevant information reduces ambiguity; it does not guarantee a correct solution.
A pull request
isn’t the finish line.
Step through an illustrative fix. Notice the human approval gate, the QA handback and what happens when the first implementation still misses the original intent.
Follow the original request
- Capture
- Plan
- Approve
- Build
- Verify
The report exists. Who decides what happens next?
Illustrative engineering & QA handoff- 01Report captured
Report captured
The original screenshot and user intent are recorded. Work has not been planned.
Human approval required before execution
One issue is difficult.
Fifty is a system problem.
Multiple requests create hidden duplicates, blockers and dependencies. A backlog is not the same thing as a coordinated execution pipeline.
Find what the list doesn’t show.
Switch on dependencies to reveal why blindly executing a batch can create rework.
Too many steps.
One clearer way.
Scroll to see how scattered actions become fewer, connected steps. The original workflow stays visible — the Aproow alternative arrives beside it.
Without Aproow
With Aproow
Capture once, keep the request.
From the moment it’s noticed.
Evidence and task, together.
No separate hunt for screenshots.
Context goes with the work.
Clearer input for the developer.
Review and verify in one history.
From the decision to QA retest.
The usual wayToo many disconnected steps for one simple issue.
Scroll to reveal the four improvements, or select a step above. This comparison illustrates a workflow, not guaranteed time savings or live integrations.
