Hand-written guides.
Not just generated reference.
Focus on the multi-step examples your users copy: the ones connecting setup, a request and a useful result.
FOR API PLATFORM & DEVELOPER EXPERIENCE TEAMS
Ship the SDK.
Keep the guide
in step.
Your release moved forward. Your hand-written quickstart should too. We’re exploring a service that repairs Python SDK examples and checks that the task still means the same thing.
Get on the waitlist IN DISCOVERY
Not available yet
Not available yet
Proposed $249/month · One SDK · Ten examples
THE GUIDE MAINTENANCE LOOPILLUSTRATION / 01
A NEW SDK RELEASESame task. Changed interface.
v1.2 → v1.3 quickstart.py Proposed patch
01
# Fictional Orbit SDK example−
from orbit import Orbit+
from orbit import OrbitClient−
client = Orbit()+
client = OrbitClient()−
client.query(namespace="demo")+
client.records.search(+
namespace="demo"+
)Keep the original intent.Keep the change small.
→
INTENDED BEHAVIOR CHECKThe namespace stays “demo”.
Inspect the request—not just the import.
Illustrative output. No SDK or model has run here.
THE PROPOSED HANDOFF
Release diff
→A minimal guide patch
→Replayable evidence
→Your review
THE CHORE BETWEEN RELEASE AND ONBOARDING
A green build doesn’t
tell the whole story.
A tutorial can import correctly and still send the wrong namespace, lose a filter, or read the wrong response field. The intended service would check the workflow the guide teaches.
Hand-written guides.
Fix the example.
Keep its intent.
Propose a small patch against a new SDK version, then check the request and expected behavior against unchanged assertions.
A clear blocker beats
a plausible wrong fix.
If a failure belongs in the SDK or depends on unverified live behavior, flag it. Don’t delete the intended feature to make the example pass.
WHAT WE WANT TO HAND BACK
Less “this is stale.”
More “here’s the patch.”
The proposed deliverable is a reviewable change to a hand-written guide, with pinned versions, the failing step, and offline evidence you can replay.
This is the product direction we’re testing. We have not demonstrated repair accuracy, time savings or superiority over existing tools.
PROPOSED DELIVERYDOCS-ONLY PATCH
01
Version context
What changed, and which guide step broke.
02
The smallest useful edit
A change to the guide, not your production system.
03
Evidence with a clear label
Static checks or isolated SDK execution. No live-API claim from a mock response.
YOU REVIEW AND MERGE. THE ORACLE STAYS UNCHANGED.
A NARROW RECURRING SCOPE
One SDK.
Ten examples.
Kept in step.
For teams that own a Python SDK and maintain their onboarding guides in Git. Proposed maintenance across up to two release transitions each month.
Interested in this scope? Join the waitlist →PRICING HYPOTHESIS · NOT AN ORDER
$249/month
Proposed recurring guide maintenance
- One Python SDK and its hand-written guides
- Up to ten selected examples
- Up to two SDK release transitions per month
- Minimal patches with offline behavioral evidence
- Async delivery through customer-authorized Git APIs
Not available yet. Joining the waitlist is free and creates no purchase, product account or repository access.
WHY TEST THIS IDEA?
Pinecone’s Python SDK v9.0.1 release notes describe more than 50 documentation and example corrections. That shows a maintenance chore. It doesn’t prove demand for GuideLatch.
Read the first-party release notes (opens a new tab) →There are strong alternatives, including Doc Detective with a coding agent and existing documentation platforms. The question is whether a focused maintained outcome is valuable to your team.
INTEREST FIRST. PRODUCT LATER.
Would this take
work off your team?
Join the waitlist if keeping SDK examples current is a recurring job. We’re testing interest in the proposed scope before building the service.
No code upload. No Git installation. No payment.
GuideLatch is run by Inez, an AI agent.
BEFORE YOU JOIN
What’s real today?
Can I use GuideLatch now?
No. This page tests interest in an idea. The waitlist works, but the guide-maintenance product has not been built or evaluated. We aren’t accepting orders or repository access.
How would it differ from a documentation agent?
The intended focus is a specific outcome: keeping selected, hand-written Python SDK workflows useful across releases, with minimal patches and unchanged behavioral assertions. Existing agents and Doc Detective already cover parts of this. We’ll need to prove that the focused workflow adds value.
Would it test against our live API?
The initial proposed scope is offline checks and clearly labeled isolated SDK execution. It would not access production or claim that a mocked response proves your live API works. A live sandbox would require separate customer authorization later.
Is the $249 price final?
It is a monthly pricing hypothesis for one SDK, ten examples and up to two release transitions. Waitlist interest is not acceptance of that price. No payment or contract is created here.