We ran delivery before we built a product for it.
Detix Group is a team of engineers, delivery leads and quality architects who have spent years shipping software where every escaped defect had a price tag and every delayed release had an audience.Detix wasn't invented on a whiteboard. Every feature exists because it saved us money, caught a risk before production, or ended an "is it ready?" debate with data instead of opinions. When it worked for our own delivery, we productized it. That's Detix.
Shipping is solved. Knowing what you shipped is not.
Getting software out the door is a solved problem. Pipelines are fast, environments are disposable, and a change can reach production in the time it takes to read the diff. Knowing whether what you shipped actually works did not get easier at the same rate.
The signal is not missing — it is scattered. Results sit in CI logs that expire within the week. Coverage lives in a spreadsheet one person maintains out of goodwill. The risks that matter are held as tribal knowledge by whoever has been on the team longest. Ask what was tested before Friday's release and the answer is usually reconstructed rather than retrieved.
Detix Group exists to close that gap. Every part of the group does the same job from a different angle: turn testing activity into evidence — a durable record of what was checked, what failed, what was accepted, and on what basis. Not a score. A record that still answers the question six months later, when someone asks it in a review.
Every team can tell you what it shipped. The teams we build for can also tell you what they checked, what broke, and what they chose to accept.
Three parts, one job
A platform that holds the record, tooling that meets developers where they already work, and a services practice that examines how a team tests.
One company doing all three is deliberate. The assessment work is where we find out what teams are actually fighting: wrong tools and usage, flaky suites, coverage nobody trusts, communication issues, a release decision made on a feeling, etc. That shapes what gets built. The products are then what make an assessment's findings verifiable a quarter later, instead of a document ageing quietly on a wiki. Advice you cannot check is an opinion with an invoice attached.
- Detix AppPrivate BetaPlatform
An AI-powered delivery intelligence platform for your whole software development lifecycle
- BrioComing soonDeveloper CLI tool
A command-line companion for AI-assisted engineering: it lets teams switch between AI tools mid-conversation without losing context, and analyzes their usage to show where AI is making them faster — and where it's wasting their money.
- Detix ServicesAvailableServices
The group's quality-engineering practice: six ways in, from one stubborn gap to a whole quality function.
Positions we are willing to be held to
Each of these costs us something. That is how you can tell they are not decoration.
- Say what the tools cannot do
- Every product has an edge where it stops helping. We would rather name that edge in the documentation and on the first call than let a team find it in month three. A shortlist we get ruled out of honestly is worth more than a deal that unravels later.
- A test suite is a product with running costs
- Tests are written once and paid for on every run — in minutes, in compute, in attention when they fail for the wrong reason. Treating a suite as an asset that only accumulates is how teams end up with thousands of cases nobody trusts. Deleting a test can be the right engineering decision.
- Self-hosting is a first-class option
- Some teams cannot put test data on infrastructure they don't control, and that is a constraint to design for rather than an exception to handle. Detix App runs inside your own environment as the same product, not a reduced variant — which means building and supporting a deployment we cannot see, patch, or debug ourselves.
- Measurement that changes a decision, or none at all
- A metric earns its place by changing what someone does: a release that waits, a suite that gets fixed, a risk that finally gets covered. Numbers that are only reported are overhead dressed as insight. If a chart has never altered a decision, it should be removed.
- Findings, not scores
- A single quality number flattens everything a team needs in order to act. An audit should hand back named findings, the evidence behind each one, and an order to work through them in. Scores are easy to circulate and hard to use.
- No dark patterns in pricing or contracts
- Plan limits, renewal terms, and what happens to your data when you leave belong in front of you before you sign. We don't build friction into cancellation or keep the ceiling of a plan vague. Being straightforward to leave is part of being worth staying with.
The practice behind the products
We are asked how we test often enough that it is worth writing down.
We work in teams from written specs, because a decision nobody wrote down gets re-litigated a month later. Changes ship in increments that can be reviewed, explained, and reverted one at a time. Security questions come up in design review rather than as a gate at the end, since the answer that arrives after a release is usually expensive.
We also run our own testing through Detix App, so awkward parts are felt here first. None of this is unusual practice. It is simply what we hold ourselves to, and the reason we are comfortable being audited on it.
- Direct ownership
- Every piece of work has a clear owner and few handoffs, so decisions are made by the people doing it.
- Written first
- A spec before code, so context outlives the conversation that produced it.
- Review by default
- Every change is read by someone who did not write it.
- Security in the loop
- Threat questions in design review, not a checklist bolted on at the end.
- Ship in increments
- Each release can be explained, and reversed, on its own.
Hold us to it.
These are positions, not slogans, and they are easier to write than to keep. If you want to put one of them against your own situation, ask — we will answer for it.