IBM launches Bob with multi-model routing and human checkpoints to turn AI coding into a secure production system
Our take
IBM's recent launch of its AI-powered software development platform, Bob, signifies a crucial evolution in the way enterprises approach coding and automation. As organizations increasingly incorporate AI agents into their software development lifecycle, the potential for security vulnerabilities and orchestration failures becomes a pressing concern. The reality is that systems that perform well in controlled pilot environments may falter when deployed with real-time data. IBM is addressing this gap by introducing a more structured workflow that emphasizes human oversight, which is a vital step toward making AI more reliable and secure. This shift not only reflects a growing understanding of the complexities involved in AI-led development but also aligns with trends observed in Claude, OpenClaw and the new reality: AI agents are here — and so is the chaos and Google and AWS split the AI agent stack between control and execution.
Bob's unique focus on integrating human checkpoints within its AI-driven coding process highlights a significant departure from purely autonomous systems that operate with minimal human intervention. By implementing a structure that pauses for human approval at various stages of the development cycle, IBM is reinforcing the importance of human involvement in AI workflows. This approach is particularly critical as enterprises navigate the fine balance between leveraging AI's capabilities and maintaining the necessary oversight to prevent errors or security breaches. Neal Sundaresan, IBM's general manager of Automation and AI, encapsulates this sentiment by stating, “Model capability alone isn’t enough.” This insight underscores the necessity for enterprises to adopt a methodical approach in deploying AI tools, thereby ensuring that they prioritize not just innovation but also accountability.
What sets Bob apart from competitors is its emphasis on control and governance over mere capability. While other tools like Cursor and Claude Code allow users to initiate and manage tasks, Bob standardizes the development workflow by structuring it into role-based stages. This ensures that human employees are not only starting the process but also ending it, effectively making them integral to the AI-driven coding environment. Such a framework mitigates risks associated with autonomous agents that may misinterpret tasks or execute them incorrectly. As enterprises continue to explore how to best integrate AI into their workflows, Bob’s commitment to combining human and automated processes may serve as a model for future tools in this space.
As we look ahead, the question remains: how will enterprises navigate the evolving landscape of AI development while maintaining a secure and productive environment? The introduction of platforms like Bob indicates a shift toward a future where companies prioritize control and auditability over unbridled automation. This evolution may redefine the role of developers, transforming them from mere coders to strategic overseers of AI-driven processes. As organizations weigh their options, the balance between experimentation and security will become increasingly paramount. What remains to be seen is how widely this structured approach will be adopted in a landscape that is often driven by the allure of rapid innovation.
Bringing AI agents into the enterprise software development lifecycle is fast becoming the norm. As developers experiment with new platforms, organizations are exposed to potential security and orchestration failures. Systems that work in pilots may fail once the agents start working with real-time data.
Legacy tech giant IBM is one of several companies trying to address that gap by introducing more structure into how these workflows run. Yesterday, it announced the global launch of its AI-powered software development platform Bob, designed to write and test code across the development cycle, already in use by more than 80,000 of its employees after starting with just 100 internal users in summer 2025.
Bob introduces a structured layer that constantly pauses for human-led checkpoints, yet by harnessing AI models to perform agentic tasks, IBM says it has saved some teams up to 70% of time "on selected tasks...equaling an average time savings of 10 hours per week."
Specific models supported include IBM's own Granite series, Anthropic's Claude, some from French AI firm Mistral and other smaller distilled models — no Alibaba Qwen or other fully open source ones.
This approach reflects a shift in how enterprises want to approach AI-led development: to build systems that not only build applications but also execute complex, multi-step workflows that do not rely on a single model or a single orchestration framework. It provides a structured, guarded approach to automation that seeks to center humans more in the process and fill audit gaps.
Neal Sundaresan, general manager, Automation and AI at IBM, told VentureBeat in an exclusive interview that a large part of using AI for software development is being systematic.
“Model capability alone isn’t enough,” Sundaresan said. “How you deploy it, how you structure context, and how you keep humans in the loop is what determines whether AI actually delivers.”
That divide is shaping how enterprises choose AI tools, whether they prioritize flexibility and experimentation or reliability and auditability.
Varying approaches to AI-led development
A growing class of open or autonomous agent systems has pushed the boundaries of what developers can do. They can now run extended or stateful workflows without much human intervention.
The rise of OpenClaw showed enterprises how far experimentation can go, especially when trained on local data and run in sandboxes. But it also meant that the choice between easier agent and workflow creation and security.
Some companies have embraced this spirit of experimentation.
Enterprise providers like Nvidia chose to embrace OpenClaw-like systems by adding a fence around the sandbox environment that runs autonomous agents, using NemoClaw. Kilo launched Kilo Claw, aimed at providing security for autonomous agents. OpenAI, in its updated Agents SDK, added support for sandbox agent implementations that mirror a lot of the usage patterns of systems like OpenClaw.
Sundaresan said enterprises continue to experiment with how they want to approach coding and agent building. He doesn’t want to close the door on fully autonomous agents proactively completing tasks, but he believes enterprises will want to exercise more caution as well.
“If you tell me that the final answer will be OpenClaw, then we will get there,” he said. “But it's better to open the gate slowly than say, 'oops, how do I close it now?'”
Bob reflects that thought process, highlighting the increasing shift for enterprises.
How Bob compares
Bob acts as a coding platform, but unlike similar products, it aims to standardize and govern the agent workflows created on it.
Tools like Cursor and Claude Code position the user at the beginning of the task. They are writing the prompts, chaining steps and debugging. LangGraph does similarly while also allowing teams to define agent flows.
The difference is not about capabilities but about control, and whether the system enterprises use explores potential solutions or delivers predictable execution.
In this case, the human employee starts and ends the process. If the agent is unable to complete its task or makes a mistake, this is handled after the fact.
Bob, on the other hand, essentially pre-structures the development lifecycle into role-based stages. The agents will often check-in with the user for approval as a natural workflow checkpoint. Sundaresan said the idea is to combine the human and automated workflows.
What is becoming clear is that the next phase of enterprise AI no longer relies on model power, but rather on how well tools are designed to balance autonomy and control.
Pricing and availability
As mentioned previously, Bob is now available for all regions where IBM does business. IBM's pricing structure for Bob consists of four primary subscription tiers for each user/seat and is built around its own internal credits system called "Bobcoins," which serves as the primary metric for transparency and predictability.
These are set at a fixed valuation of 1 Bobcoin per $0.50 USD. Users consume these coins by performing specific actions, such as generating code, running commands, or performing file operations. If a user exhausts their balance, they must upgrade their plan to continue using the service.
Here are the plans currently offered and how many Bobcoins the user obtains by subscribing to each tier.
30-day Free Trial providing 40 Bobcoins
Pro plan at $20 per month with 40 Bobcoins
Pro+ plan at $60 per month with 160 Bobcoins
Ultra tier priced at $200 per month for 500 Bobcoins.
All standard plans provide access to core features including specialized agentic modes, literate coding, the Bob Shell for intelligent CLI workflows, and Model Context Protocol (MCP) integration.
While all individual plans are restricted to a single user, an Enterprise plan is available through sales contact, offering centralized team management, flexible role assignments, and the ability to distribute Bobcoins across an organization.
Enterprise subscribers receive additional benefits such as priority support and a dashboard to track entitlements and usage awareness.
Read on the original site
Open the publisher's page for the full experience
Related Articles
- Claude, OpenClaw and the new reality: AI agents are here — and so is the chaosThe age of agentic AI is upon us — whether we like it or not. What started with an innocent question-answer banter with ChatGPT back in 2022 has become an existential debate on job security and the rise of the machines. More recently, fears of reaching artificial general intelligence (AGI) have become more real with the advent of powerful autonomous agents like Claude Cowork and OpenClaw. Having played with these tools for some time, here is a comparison. First, we have OpenClaw (formerly known as Moltbot and Clawdbot). Surpassing 150,000 GitHub stars in days, OpenClaw is already being deployed on local machines with deep system access. This is like a robot “maid” (Irona for Richie Rich fans, for instance) that you give the keys to your house. It’s supposed to clean it, and you give it the necessary autonomy to take actions and manage your belongings (files and data) as it pleases. The whole purpose is to perform the task at hand — inbox triaging, auto-replies, content curation, travel planning, and more. Next we have Google’s Antigravity, a coding agent with an IDE that accelerates the path from prompt to production. You can interactively create complete application projects and modify specific details over individual prompts. This is like having a junior developer that can not only code, but build, test, integrate, and fix issues. In the realworld, this is like hiring an electrician: They are really good at a specific job and you only need to give them access to a specific item (your electric junction box). Finally, we have the mighty Claude. The release of Anthropic's Cowork, which featured AI agents for automating legal tasks like contract review and NDA triage, caused a sharp sell-off in legal-tech and software-as-a-service (SaaS) stocks (referred to as the SaaSpocalypse). Claude has anyway been the go-to chatbot; now with Cowork, it has domain knowledge for specific industries like legal and finance. This is like hiring an accountant. They know the domain inside-out and can complete taxes and manage invoices. Users provide specific access to highly-sensitive financial details. Making these tools work for you The key to making these tools more impactful is giving them more power, but that increases the risk of misuse. Users must trust providers like Anthorpic and Google to ensure that agent prompts will not cause harm, leak data, or provide unfair (illegal) advantage to certain vendors. OpenClaw is open-source, which complicates things, as there is no central governing authority. While these technological advancements are amazing and meant for the greater good, all it takes is one or two adverse events to cause panic. Imagine the agentic electrician frying all your house circuits by connecting the wrong wire. In an agent scenario, this could be injecting incorrect code, breaking down a bigger system or adding hidden flaws that may not be immediately evident. Cowork could miss major saving opportunities when doing a user's taxes; on the flip side, it could include illegal writeoffs. Claude can do unimaginable damage when it has more control and authority. But in the middle of this chaos, there is an opportunity to really take advantage. With the right guardrails in place, agents can focus on specific actions and avoid making random, unaccounted-for decisions. Principles of responsible AI — accountability, transparency, reproducibility, security, privacy — are extremely important. Logging agent steps and human confirmation are absolutely critical. Also, when agents deal with so many diverse systems, it's important they speak the same language. Ontology becomes very important so that events can be tracked, monitored, and accounted for. A shared domain-specific ontology can define a “code of conduct." These ethics can help control the chaos. When tied together with a shared trust and distributed identity framework, we can build systems that enable agents to do truly useful work. When done right, an agentic ecosystem can greatly offload the human “cognitive load” and enable our workforce to perform high-value tasks. Humans will benefit when agents handle the mundane. Dattaraj Rao is innovation and R&D architect at Persistent Systems.
- Claude, OpenClaw and the new reality: AI agents are here — and so is the chaosThe age of agentic AI is upon us — whether we like it or not. What started with an innocent question-answer banter with ChatGPT back in 2022 has become an existential debate on job security and the rise of the machines. More recently, fears of reaching artificial general intelligence (AGI) have become more real with the advent of powerful autonomous agents like Claude Cowork and OpenClaw. Having played with these tools for some time, here is a comparison. First, we have OpenClaw (formerly known as Moltbot and Clawdbot). Surpassing 150,000 GitHub stars in days, OpenClaw is already being deployed on local machines with deep system access. This is like a robot “maid” (Irona for Richie Rich fans, for instance) that you give the keys to your house. It’s supposed to clean it, and you give it the necessary autonomy to take actions and manage your belongings (files and data) as it pleases. The whole purpose is to perform the task at hand — inbox triaging, auto-replies, content curation, travel planning, and more. Next we have Google’s Antigravity, a coding agent with an IDE that accelerates the path from prompt to production. You can interactively create complete application projects and modify specific details over individual prompts. This is like having a junior developer that can not only code, but build, test, integrate, and fix issues. In the realworld, this is like hiring an electrician: They are really good at a specific job and you only need to give them access to a specific item (your electric junction box). Finally, we have the mighty Claude. The release of Anthropic's Cowork, which featured AI agents for automating legal tasks like contract review and NDA triage, caused a sharp sell-off in legal-tech and software-as-a-service (SaaS) stocks (referred to as the SaaSpocalypse). Claude has anyway been the go-to chatbot; now with Cowork, it has domain knowledge for specific industries like legal and finance. This is like hiring an accountant. They know the domain inside-out and can complete taxes and manage invoices. Users provide specific access to highly-sensitive financial details. Making these tools work for you The key to making these tools more impactful is giving them more power, but that increases the risk of misuse. Users must trust providers like Anthorpic and Google to ensure that agent prompts will not cause harm, leak data, or provide unfair (illegal) advantage to certain vendors. OpenClaw is open-source, which complicates things, as there is no central governing authority. While these technological advancements are amazing and meant for the greater good, all it takes is one or two adverse events to cause panic. Imagine the agentic electrician frying all your house circuits by connecting the wrong wire. In an agent scenario, this could be injecting incorrect code, breaking down a bigger system or adding hidden flaws that may not be immediately evident. Cowork could miss major saving opportunities when doing a user's taxes; on the flip side, it could include illegal writeoffs. Claude can do unimaginable damage when it has more control and authority. But in the middle of this chaos, there is an opportunity to really take advantage. With the right guardrails in place, agents can focus on specific actions and avoid making random, unaccounted-for decisions. Principles of responsible AI — accountability, transparency, reproducibility, security, privacy — are extremely important. Logging agent steps and human confirmation are absolutely critical. Also, when agents deal with so many diverse systems, it's important they speak the same language. Ontology becomes very important so that events can be tracked, monitored, and accounted for. A shared domain-specific ontology can define a “code of conduct." These ethics can help control the chaos. When tied together with a shared trust and distributed identity framework, we can build systems that enable agents to do truly useful work. When done right, an agentic ecosystem can greatly offload the human “cognitive load” and enable our workforce to perform high-value tasks. Humans will benefit when agents handle the mundane. Dattaraj Rao is innovation and R&D architect at Persistent Systems.
- Google and AWS split the AI agent stack between control and executionThe era of enterprises stitching together prompt chains and shadow agents is nearing its end as more options for orchestrating complex multi-agent systems emerge. As organizations move AI agents into production, the question remains: "how will we manage them?" Google and Amazon Web Services offer fundamentally different answers, illustrating a split in the AI stack. Google’s approach is to run agentic management on the system layer, while AWS’s harness method sets up in the execution layer. The debate on how to manage and control gained new energy this past month as competing companies released or updated their agent builder platforms—Anthropic with the new Claude Managed Agents and OpenAI with enhancements to the Agents SDK—giving developer teams options for managing agents. AWS with new capabilities added to Bedrock AgentCore is optimizing for velocity—relying on harnesses to bring agents to product faster—while still offering identity and tool management. Meanwhile, Google’s Gemini Enterprise adopts a governance-focused approach using a Kubernetes-style control plane. Each method offers a glimpse into how agents move from short-burst task helpers to longer-running entities within a workflow. Upgrades and umbrellas To understand where each company stands, here’s what’s actually new. Google released a new version of Gemini Enterprise, bringing its enterprise AI agent offerings—Gemini Enterprise Platform and Gemini Enterprise Application—under one umbrella. The company has rebranded Vertex AI as Gemini Enterprise Platform, though it insists that, aside from the name change and new features, it’s still fundamentally the same interface. “We want to provide a platform and a front door for companies to have access to all the AI systems and tools that Google provides,” Maryam Gholami, senior director, product management for Gemini Enterprise, told VentureBeat in an interview. “The way you can think about it is that the Gemini Enterprise Application is built on top of the Gemini Enterprise Agent Platform, and the security and governance tools are all provided for free as part of Gemini Enterprise Application subscription.” On the other hand, AWS added a new managed agent harness to Bedrock Agentcore. The company said in a press release shared with VentureBeat that the harness “replaces upfront build with a config-based starting point powered by Strands Agents, AWS’s open source agent framework.” Users define what the agent does, the model it uses and the tools it calls, and AgentCore does the work to stitch all of that together to run the agent. Agents are now becoming systems The shift toward stateful, long-running autonomous agents has forced a rethink of how AI systems behave. As agents move from short-lived tasks to long-running workflows, a new class of failure is emerging: state drift. As agents continue operating, they accumulate state—memory, too, responses and evolving context. Over time, that state becomes outdated. Data sources change, or tools can return conflicting responses. But the agent becomes more vulnerable to inconsistencies and becomes less truthful. Agent reliability becomes a systems problem, and managing that drift may need more than faster execution; it may require visibility and control. It’s this failure point that platforms like Gemini Enterprise and AgentCore try to prevent. Though this shift is already happening, Gholami admitted that customers will dictate how they want to run and control any long-running agent. “We are going to learn a lot from customers where they would be using long-running agents, where they just assign a task to these autonomous agents to just go ahead and do,” Gholami said. “Of course, there are tricks and balances to get right and the agent may come back and ask for more input.” The new AI stack What’s becoming increasingly clear is that the AI stack is separating into distinct layers, solving different problems. AWS and, to a certain extent, Anthropic and OpenAI, optimize for faster deployment. Claude Managed Agents abstracts much of the backend work for standing up an agent, while the Agents SDK now includes support for sandboxes and a ready-made harness. These approaches aim to lower the barrier to getting agents up and running. Google offers a centralized control panel to manage identity, enforce policies and monitor long-running behaviors. Enterprises likely need both. As some practitioners see it, their businesses have to have a serious conversation on how much risk they are willing to take. “The main takeaway for enterprise technology leaders considering these technologies at the moment may be formulated this way: while the agent harness vs. runtime question is often perceived as build vs. buy, this is primarily a matter of risk management. If you can afford to run your agents through a third-party runtime because they do not affect your revenue streams, that is okay. On the contrary, in the context of more critical processes, the latter option will be the only one to consider from a business perspective,” Rafael Sarim Oezdemir, head of growth at EZContacts, told VentureBeat in an email. Iterating quickly lets teams experiment and discover what agents can do, while centralized control adds a layer of trust. What enterprises need is to ensure they are not locked into systems designed purely for a single way of executing agents.