Comparison
Existing solutions in this space.
A fair survey of the closest tools — Tessl, Augment Intent, GitHub Spec-Kit, Kiro — and how they relate to Intent-System.
Each card links to the official site. Intent-System links to the Try page on this site.
Tessl
SDD · Spec-as-source
Spec is the only source. Code is regenerated.
tessl.io
Augment Intent
SDD · Spec-anchored
Living Spec keeps spec and code aligned via CI.
www.intentapp.dev
GitHub Spec-Kit
SDD · Spec-first → anchored
Spec-first workflow integrated with GitHub.
github.com/github/spec-kit
Kiro
SDD · Spec-anchored (IDE)
IDE-first spec-driven coding.
kiro.dev
Intent-System
IDD · Intent-as-source
Tree-Structured Operational IDD — our own implementation.
Try page
Detailed comparison
Tessl vs Intent-System
We respect each tool's self-description; comparisons are structural, not evaluative. Switch tools below to compare each side-by-side with Intent-System.
| Axis | Tessl | Intent-System |
|---|---|---|
| Layer | SDD · Spec-as-source | IDD · Intent-as-source |
| Source of truth | spec file (1:1 with code) | Intent tree |
| Primary language | spec DSL with @generate / @test tags | structured intent (Purpose / User / Means) |
| Drift handling | code regenerated on every build (cannot drift) | Closeout writes diff back to the tree |
| Product-experience intent | not addressed | same tree as technical intent |
| Hierarchy | per-file (1:1 mapping) | tree across domains |
| Confidence model | spec is the contract | inferred → clarified → canonical |
| Operational loop | build → regen | issue + closeout cadence |
| Multi-domain | framework / project level | multiple submodules |
| Onboarding cost | high — reshape codebase to spec mapping | moderate — tree curation up front |
| Distribution | framework + registry; pivoting to context platform | under exploration — see Try page |