You shipped it. Did it work?
“Less than 20% of teams actually check.”
Outcomes live in a spreadsheet nobody opens, or nowhere at all. Features ship. Metrics drift. Nobody connects the two.
Cursor solved building.
Intite solves deciding, tracking, and remembering.
Building got fast. Everything else didn’t.
Cursor and Claude Code shrunk a two-week feature into an afternoon. The work that wraps around it — discovery, briefing, verification, memory — still runs at hand-cranked, pre-AI pace. That asymmetry is where every modern product team is bleeding.
Cursor implements. But from what?
“A Notion doc, written for a human.”
AI coding tools need codebase context, structured constraints, linked metrics — not a prose document built for human interpretation. Without that, Cursor guesses.
Your team tried this six months ago.
“Your AI coder has no memory. Neither does your team.”
A failed approach gets re-proposed because the context lived in someone’s head, or a closed Slack thread, or a deleted Notion page.
From signal to shipped — no meetings, no PRDs.
· Before · Manualthe long way round
- 01Three tools open. No single view of what users are experiencing.
- 02PM writes a Notion doc. Engineer interprets it. Cursor guesses from that.
- 03Feature ships. Nobody checks if it worked.
- 04Same failed approach gets proposed again six months later.
- 05Two engineers build overlapping things. Neither knows until the merge conflict.
· After · Intitethe direct line
- 01One ranked list of user problems, sourced from all your tools automatically.
- 02Cursor receives a complete spec — codebase context, constraints, metrics, history. No briefing.
- 03Every outcome is logged. Metrics track against the contract automatically.
- 04Failed approaches are blocked. The system remembers so your team doesn’t have to.
- 05Overlapping contracts are flagged before either goes to Cursor.
01Signals/ ingest
02Ranked/ cluster
03Contract/ generate
04Review/ approve
05Ship/ implement
06Measured/ verify
9 fields · 1 source of truth
Cursor needs more than a Notion doc.
An Intent Contract gives your AI coder everything it needs to implement correctly — codebase context, hard constraints, success metrics, and the full history of what's been tried on this problem before.
✦Generated automatically when a PM approves a signal.
✦The PM approves. The engineer checks constraints.
✦Cursor implements. Nobody writes a spec.
Intent Contract / IC-2024-0847
Billing Flow Redesign.
✓ Approvedgenerated · 0.4s
01
Problemauto · slack + posthog
Billing flow is confusing — 47 users couldn’t find setup, payment step has 23% drop-off.
02
Affected Segmentauto · posthog cohort
847 users who dropped off at onboarding step 3 in the last 30 days.
03
Codebase Contextauto · repo scan
BillingStep.tsx, PaymentForm.tsx, billing.ts · stripe-integration service.
04
Hypothesisstructured · pm-edited
Simplifying the billing flow will reduce step-3 drop-off by 20%, measurable within 14 days.
05
Constraintshard · engineer-reviewed
Must not break checkout flow or subscriptions. Pricing page redesign is out of scope. LCP < 2.5s.
06
Success Metriclinked · posthog event
ob_step3_completion rate target +20%. Guardrail: checkout_error_rate must not increase.
07
Experiment Historymemory · exp-031
1 prior attempt — simplified form fields, metric moved −2%. Root cause was not form length.
08
Verification Checklistauto · 3 checks
Does implementation address billing UX? Is checkout flow untouched? LCP < 2.5s maintained?
→ handed to cursor · no PRD attachedlive
Your team’s memory.
And your AI coder’s.
As building gets cheaper and faster, teams ship more. The bottleneck shifts from building to remembering, coordinating, and not repeating what already failed.
I.
Nothing gets tried twice.
Every hypothesis is logged with the outcome and the reason it failed. If it failed, it’s blocked from repeating.
II.
Two engineers can’t step on each other.
When two contracts reference overlapping files, the conflict is flagged before either goes to Cursor. Nobody finds out at the merge.
III.
The advantage compounds.
Every experiment makes future contracts more accurate. The pipeline can be copied. Two years of your team’s experiment history can’t.
Your team is already shipping fast.
Now ship the right things.
Your engineers are already shipping in hours with Cursor or Claude Code. We're onboarding the teams who are ready to fix everything upstream.