It worked when you tested it. Then somebody pushed.
Rima started with something we kept noticing. We would test a feature, see it work and move on. Then one of us, or a teammate, pushed new code and it quietly stopped working. Nobody knew until a customer told us.
Testing it once is easy. Testing it again after every change is what wears people down.
Sign up, login, checkout, billing, invitations, admin actions. Every team can name them. The only defence used to be repeating the same checks by hand after every push, and doing the same test for the twentieth time is discouraging. So it gets skipped, and the skipped check is the one that would have caught it. Rima takes the check once and repeats it for you.
Coverage should not require code
The people who understand the product best are often the ones who do not write automation. If protecting a flow means opening a test framework first, most flows never get protected.
"It works" should be something you can show
Every run leaves a video, screenshots and a step-by-step record. A failure becomes something you can point at instead of something you have to reproduce from someone's description.
A safety net cannot depend on remembering
Scheduled runs happen whether or not anyone kicks them off, which is the whole point. The checks that get skipped are the ones that depended on a person having a good week.
AI should do the tedious part, and you keep the last word
Describe a test in plain English and Rima's AI writes it, then runs it to prove it passes before anything is saved. When a run fails, it works out whether the cause is your code, the test or the server, explains it plainly, and can open a pull request with the fix for your team to review.
A failure should point at itself
Results name the exact step and the exact check that did not hold, so the work starts at fixing rather than at hunting.
What we optimise for.
Simple to start
Your first test should take about five minutes, not an afternoon of setup. If getting started is a project, it does not get started.
Signals worth reading
A result that says only "failed" costs you an hour. We would rather show the step, the screen and the moment than a red status.
Shared, not siloed
Tests belong to the team, not to whoever recorded them. Coverage should survive somebody's holiday, or their notice period.
It fits the release habits you already have.
Before a release
Run the flows you would hate to ship broken, and see the result before you press deploy rather than after.
After a change
Re-run the affected journey as soon as you or a teammate pushes, so a change is confirmed by a run instead of by a hopeful glance.
During quiet maintenance
A nightly schedule keeps watching the client site nobody has opened in a month, which is exactly when things rot.
The person behind Rima.
Rima is built and run by Idris Saidu, a software engineer who has been building and maintaining production web systems since 2018. That work has covered QA, system validation, and the long term upkeep of large multi-tenant platforms, the kind where a production failure has consequences somebody feels.
He trained as an aerospace engineer, a field where nothing ships without being tested, inspected, and tested again. Rima brings that habit to web teams. Every release should be able to prove its core flows still work, and proving it should not require writing test code first.
Questions, feedback, or just want to argue about testing? Reach him at [email protected], or through the contact page.
Testing should make you calmer, not slower.
Start with the one journey you would hate to find broken. The free plan costs nothing and does not ask for a card.