A planner, a builder, two reviewers and someone to handle the release — on every task you hand over. You describe what you want in plain words. They do the work, check each other, and hand it back finished. Not a demo — a product that's live, in front of people, making money.
Launching soon — the waitlist gets first access.
Three tasks in flight, one needs you. One conversation — nothing ships until you say so.
Anything can generate code now — that was never the bottleneck. What you wanted is a product: live, used by real people, making real money.
Every other AI tool makes you the reviewer. Your crew reviews before you ever see it — you read the result, not the diff. No more pasting code you don't fully understand and hoping.
Branches, commits, reviews, releases — it's all happening underneath, done properly, by the crew. You don't drive any of it day to day, and you can't lose an afternoon's work by running the wrong thing. It's your project, so it's all still there if you ever want to look.
What comes out is a normal repo with normal branches — not an export trapped in someone's platform. If you ever hire a real developer, you hand them a clean repo, not an export.
Hand it off and go do your actual job. The crew works without you watching, and pings you only when it needs a founder's decision. An evening of babysitting an AI chat becomes a task you hand off at 9 and merge at noon.
A solo builder babysits one AI chat. You have a crew — hand over several tasks and go do your actual job.
Approve the plan. Answer a question. Ship it. That's when you hear from the crew — not every time a file changes.
Message the crew mid-task, at midnight, whenever. It's queued and picked up at the right moment — nothing you say falls on the floor.
You've seen that pitch. Everyone selling an AI tool makes it. Here's how it actually plays out — and what we promise instead.
Something that runs, then something that half-works, then a pile nobody can safely change. The remedy on offer: hire a developer and start again. Professionals don't escape it either — they just recognise it sooner.
Smaller, and worth more: every piece of work is checked before it lands. That's the difference between a demo and a thing you own.
Most of these aren't rivals — they do different jobs, and you may well keep using one alongside Turbopunks. But line them up and one difference stands out.
| Capability | Turbopunks | Lovable | Cursor | Claude Code / Codex | n8n |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Checks its own work before you see it | YES | NO | NO | NO | NO |
| No coding skills needed | YES | YES | NO | YES | YES |
| Handles git and releases for you | YES | YES | NO | NO | — |
| Works on a project you already have | YES | YES | YES | YES | — |
| Code stays on your machine | YES | NO | YES | YES | NO |
| Nothing changes without your approval | YES | NO | NO | NO | NO |
— means it's a different kind of tool, not a failing. Turbopunks runs the same AI tools you'd use on their own — it's what happens around them that differs.
You talk to the supervisor and nobody else. Plan, build, review — and around again until the reviewers run out of objections.
Reads what you asked for, looks around the project, and tells you what it intends to do before it does it. You can make its plan wait for your yes.
In its own copy of the project, so nothing it does can touch what's already working. When it says it's done, that gets checked rather than believed.
They pass it or they fail it. No hedging, no "looks good overall." A fail goes back to the builder with the reasons, and round it goes again.
Packages the work up cleanly and releases it. Nothing goes live until you decide it should — and you never touch the machinery to make it happen.
Every role runs custom-tailored instructions — written by us, refined over time, across millions of lines of code agents have written. That experience is the product.
Agents fail in patterns — overreach, invented APIs, "done" that isn't. The instructions exist to shut down each pattern we've watched happen.
The builder's instructions keep it in scope. The reviewers' make them hunt for what's broken. Same AI underneath — completely different job descriptions.
All of it is baked in from your first task. You get the judgment of millions of agent-written lines without having burned tokens learning it yourself.
The app is free to use on a handful of projects. When it earns a bigger place in how you build, there'll be a paid plan — priced when we launch, announced to the waitlist first.
We don't resell AI. Your crew runs on your own Claude or OpenAI account — we never mark up a token.
One account is enough; connect both Claude and OpenAI and the review becomes cross-vendor.
You need to be able to describe what you want and recognise it when you see it. You don't need to write anything, read the code it produces, or know what any of it means. If you've built something with AI before and shipped it somewhere, you're the person this is for.
That's the failure this is built to prevent. Work arrives in small pieces, each one reviewed before it lands, rather than as thousands of lines generated in one go that nobody has read. It's not a guarantee — no tool can promise that — but it's the difference between a codebase that grows and one that congeals.
Day to day, no — Turbopunks drives the versioning, the saving, the tidying-up and the release, and does it properly underneath: branches, clean commits, pull requests. You just aren't the one doing it.
A GitHub account is worth having, though — it's free and takes two minutes. It keeps a copy of your work off your machine, and if you ever bring in a real developer, everything is already in the one place they'd expect to find it.
The honest exception is setup: installing the AI tools means a few terminal commands, once, with a guide to walk you through.
Every task happens in a separate copy, so while the work is going on your real project sits untouched. Only the final step — the one you approve — changes anything for real. And the parts of Turbopunks that write code are blocked from touching your project at all: that's enforced by the app, not by asking the AI nicely.
Claude Code or Codex, through their own apps, using your account — either one runs the whole crew. Install both and the review gets sharper: the work is checked by a different AI than the one that wrote it, because a model is very bad at spotting what it just talked itself into.
You can — that's exactly what the crew does underneath. The difference is what each agent is told: every role runs custom-tailored instructions we've written and refined over time, across millions of lines of code agents have written for us. That experience is baked in from your first task — along with the review loop and the safety rails, which a raw prompt doesn't give you.
A Mac, and at least one of the two AI apps installed and signed in —
claude or codex (both is better: that's what makes the
review cross-vendor). If you want Turbopunks to open pull requests for you,
GitHub's gh tool signed in too. It's a one-time setup, and there's a
guide.
On your machine, in your own project. Turbopunks has no server and no account — there's nothing to sign up for and nothing of yours sitting on someone else's computer. The AI apps talk to their own providers exactly as they already do when you use them directly.
It comes back and asks you. It won't guess at something important, and it won't keep going in circles burning through your usage — if the reviewers and the builder can't agree, that lands in your lap with the reasons attached.
There's a free plan — the full crew, on a limited number of projects. The paid plan removes the project limit; its price is set at launch and the waitlist hears it first. AI usage runs on your own Claude or Codex account at whatever you already pay — Turbopunks never marks it up.
Turbopunks is built in the open, and it builds itself — its own features get planned, written, reviewed and shipped by Turbopunks. Leave your email and you'll hear the day it installs.
Launching soon — the waitlist gets first access. Unsubscribe in a click.