Show HN: Whiteboard (YC W26) – An open-source IDE for thoughtful software design

127 points - today at 5:21 PM


Hello! We’re Sid, Alex, Ketan, and Milan. We’re building Whiteboard, an open-source desktop app where humans and agents can architect software together in a common workspace. Here’s our repo: https://github.com/devdotfast/whiteboard and our homepage: https://whiteboard.dev.fast/

We were missing the feeling of a ā€œwhiteboard sessionā€ with another dev where you leave with a deep understanding of a system, so we built this app for ourselves. Whiteboard plugs into the tools you already use - e.g. Claude Code, Codex, etc. – and gives your agent an SDK to draw on an in-app canvas to describe its work. We began with an MVP based on HTML artifacts and started rethinking the app as we ran into limitations:

1. Built on top of CodeOSS: We found that in pure HTML tools it was hard to connect a spec or diagram to code. In Whiteboard, when you click on visualizations like a sequence diagram, an entity relationship diagram, or a quote from the agent’s trace, you can jump to the underlying code directly. When navigating code, you get keybindings and LSP support from VSCode out of the box. We’ve found this is especially valuable because tradeoffs are often only discovered after a first pass at implementation (re: slop)

2. Semantic diff viewer: we wrote a semantic, AST-aware diff viewer in Rust so you can only view the code changes which are relevant to you [1]. We’ve set up some sane defaults: large added functions are summarized as pseudocode, and things like unit tests and large documentation changes are collapsed / hidden. This is all customizable with a WASM-based plugin system.

3. Decision Log: We found it difficult to reason about what set of decisions our agents made autonomously. So we built tools for agents to query and link their own traces to the Whiteboard, so you can understand how the requirements that you set were implemented, and understand what decisions your agent made autonomously.

Here’s a quick demo video explaining more: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChPn3ftULWE

Folks at companies like Salesforce and Modal are using Whiteboard today as a review tool for architecture or spec-level changes – really any change where they want to be involved:

1. Reviewing your own coding agent’s work: because Whiteboard makes it easier to review large amounts of code, folks will typically have their AI agents create a prototype and a corresponding Whiteboard session so they can iterate on the design.

2. Reviewing other people’s changes: We’ve found that Whiteboard is particularly helpful when composed with tools like Greptile. For example, you can run an automated code reviewer on small changes and escalate to a Whiteboard session for the changes that require human judgement.

Why we built this: we’re four buddies from college who quit our jobs as tech leads right before agentic coding became industry standard. As we iterated towards an MVP for a previous idea, we struggled to maintain a comprehensible codebase while reaping all the velocity benefits of agentic coding. As more PRs were merged without our understanding, we felt a ā€˜cognitive debt’ begin to seep in, until it became difficult for us to even contribute to the system [2].

We’re releasing our desktop app under an MIT license. Please poke through and feel free to contribute! Eventually we’ll charge companies for a hosted web version that manages whiteboard session creation alongside features like trajectory storage and multiplayer reviews. Everything will always remain self-hostable.

Thanks for reading, and we hope you try it out! We would love to hear any feedback and to learn from your expertise.

Here’s are the project links again: https://github.com/devdotfast/whiteboard, and you can install (for MacOS + Linux) at https://install.dev.fast

[1] diffs library: https://github.com/devdotfast/diffr [2] Credit for the term ā€˜cognitive debt’ goes to https://www.geoffreylitt.com/2026/07/02/understanding-is-the...

Source

Comments

8organicbits today at 8:43 PM
One concern about accuracy of the diagrams. In the example, there is a transition back to the session service labelled "wait for release" after the "no" decision. I'm not seeing that in the shown diff.

Looking at the code the "no" seems to relate to the context expiring, so you wouldn't want to wait more if the context already expired, you'd want to stop. Is there a reason that label exists?

I'm pretty wary of LLM development tools hallucinating and wasting my time, is that whats happening in the lease broker example?

bbor today at 6:04 PM
Oh WOW, cool to see a technique that'll be everywhere in 12 months (the fake pen drawing animations + streaming diagrams as they're produced) first be announced. Do we still do "First!" comments, y'all?

~~[EDIT: you need to put "only for macOS" in way more prominent places, all over -- that offends my soul greatly and may Linus frown upon you all]~~ [EDIT2: I was mistaken!]

This all looks really solid. That said, two remarks:

1. The integration with OS LSPs is quite fun and commendable. Is it possible that the diagrams might get their own LSP, someday? Or is better just staying as direct TS callsites?

2. The choice of the word "IDE" seems like it might get you in trouble, given the small "cannot edit files" detail. Any comments on the decision there, as opposed to, say... "brainstorming tool"? Or hell, "[architectonic] harness"?

3. The psuedocode "semantic diff" thing is an incredible idea, wow. Props there.

4. This language kinda concerns me: "how the requirements that you set were implemented". In my highly-arbitrary development flow, it ideally goes `idea -> spec/reqs -> plan -> test -> impl -> eval -> land -> review`, and this kind of tool seems explicitly targeted towards just the second and third with some partial coverage of their neighbors on either side. More concretely: by adding implementation, don't you lose a powerful specificity selling point and now have to compete with all full harnesses?

5. Suggesting "GPT-6 Luna and Claude Opus 5.5" is presumably a typo? Cause the equivelant of Opus 5.5 is Astra, and even then not really.

itissid today at 8:41 PM
very cool. Congrats on the launch. first half of 2026 was the year when every one made such internal tools one way or another. I am happy you guys could build a product out of it.

The cool thing is even though this tool addresses a few, use case for reducing cognitive load, they happen so frequently that they add up.

I think they key with cognitive load is that the agents often produce a lot of trace/docs etc, in the end only a small % of the traces really are important to the final changes, because concise changes are typically very small and self contained.

One thing i see this becoming important with is maintaining internal tooling built using this. I maintain an internal docs system that helps me do designing before i build code, that docs system is completely vibe coded and i can add features to it very fast, but now its all grown up. A challenge then is can i understand just enough about a new proposed change to approve it? That is key to the doc system not becoming a burden in of itself, while maintaining a tight core feature set.

syl5x today at 8:47 PM
Okay great timing because I was having the exact same idea, but mine was just a skill that was building a website with the flow mapped out and the relevant code, which seems that you are doing as well, definitely going to follow this, good luck guys!
deleted today at 8:30 PM
metanonsense today at 8:36 PM
Yeah.. that's something that I thought about for a few years now. I think making sense of code bases and software design will soon be a completely new industry. I had expected that companies like Jetbrains would be in a prime position to offer solutions for that, but it takes longer than I expected.
woggy today at 8:50 PM
Plans for Windows version?
2001zhaozhao today at 6:17 PM
This is definitely getting at least some things right about how we work with agents today, specifically that we often work at the architecture level, and we need a better alternative to the current Plan Mode offered by coding agents to efficiently architect software at a high level, which is more visual and offers better back-and-forth incrementation with the agent than simply "reject final plan with X message".

From the website demos i definitely think this is a clean interface, although I don't know how much better this is compared to some simple custom Mermaid format, which the agent can write as artifact files and present to users. Zooming out, this app seems like 1 feature (a MCP with a GUI attached to it) rather than an entire product.

Also, I don't know if asking the agent to write specific code changes into the plan is a good idea. I think maybe that a "plan -> approve -> write code" would let the agent write higher quality code than "plan which contains code -> approve". But maybe you can make it work when combined with some specific prompting marking the code as clearly work-in-progress and subject to change, and that the agent should surface any parts implemented differently relative to the plan to the user, etc.

nmekala35 today at 8:19 PM
Interesting idea for sure. But as a software engineer, I’m struggling to map out what this would replace today. I use Cursor pretty heavily, but it’s not entirely clear what would make me jump to a new IDE based on what you’ve built so far.

Maybe I’m missing something.

doc_ick today at 6:58 PM
If only this tool came out before I discovered the ballerina programming language (https://ballerina.io/). Otherwise I am inline with the language <-> uml like definition ballerina statically provides without llm usage.
writtenone today at 6:27 PM
We need LESS of AI and more HUMAN thinking. The process of thought and the increased difficulty with increased complexity is a feature not a bug.

AI note taking is a scourge on society and needs to go.

shouryamaanjain today at 8:24 PM
this is really cool, claude artifacts often fails to visualize/explain system's layout and flows
igorkraw today at 7:49 PM
Looks cool :-)Linux wen plz so I can play with it?
asdev today at 7:53 PM
I think the issue with this type of product is it creates an N+1 source of truth for teams alongside their other tools. Inherently, this will get out of date as a project progresses. You could have an agent update based on changes, but that would likely degrade the design doc/artifact into unintelligible slop which wouldn't be useful in the future. This is a behavioral/structural problem of software design in general, which I don't think can be solved by software. Perhaps if this is mainly focused on collaboration at design time, but then that begs the question if teams will really want this tool versus using Notion, Linear, Google Docs.
shaundano today at 6:53 PM
Very happy to see a product like this. UML-style diagramming is still a part of my workflow when designing any architecture. Excited to try it out.
verdverm today at 8:08 PM
I was confused for a moment by the name "Sid" in new coding tools.

Sid of GitLab raised for Kilo, and GitLab is also of YC

https://capwolf.com/former-gitlab-ceo-launches-kilo-in-ai-co...

artur_makly today at 7:30 PM
Congrats! Looks tight.
theaniketmaurya today at 6:52 PM
looks great! personally for me, system design is quite imporatn and cognitive debt is shooting up
souvlakee today at 5:53 PM
Loved that zed-inspired landing pages.
eliburnes today at 6:42 PM
Excited to try this out!
komposit today at 5:53 PM
Cool idea will give this a try!
saadn92 today at 6:02 PM
What does pricing look like?
verdverm today at 7:22 PM
Does it have a terminal and panes? These are things I do not ever see giving up
factorialboy today at 6:37 PM
736mb on macOS

/facepalm

imshaikot today at 8:30 PM
[dead]
tuhinkantisharm today at 6:29 PM
[dead]
tuhinkantisharm today at 6:29 PM
[dead]
ls-a today at 7:26 PM
[dead]
nthypes today at 6:10 PM
Vibe-coded landing pages are an instant ā€œno thanksā€ for me.