How it works
We build a substantiated claim from your pull requests and commits.
No timesheets to reconstruct, no blank-page R&D report to write. We start from the work you already did and the trail it left in GitHub.
[ the process ] - five steps
-
01
Connect GitHub
Point us at one or more repositories. We support multiple repos for a single company.
-
02
We ingest the work
We pull your pull requests (or your commit history, for repos that do not use them), the contributors behind them, and the timestamps. This is the raw evidence your claim is built from.
-
03
We do a first pass
We automatically set aside the obviously routine work, like dependency bumps, lockfile changes, and docs-only edits, so the interview focuses only on what might be real R&D.
-
04
Guided interview
We ask you specific, grounded questions about the work that is left. Your answers map each genuine experiment against the statutory four-gate test.
"You reworked this module three times over six weeks with two reverts. What did you not know going in?"
-
05
Your claim package
A reviewable package: the confirmed experiments, their substantiation, the evidence each one links to, an estimate of hours and cost per contributor, and an estimated dollar offset. Your tax adviser reviews and lodges it.
Control
You decide what goes in
We propose candidates and ask questions. You confirm what is genuinely R&D and scope out what is not. Nothing is lodged automatically, and nothing is claimed that you have not stood behind.
[ the test ] - what every experiment must clear
The four gates.
Gate 01
Technical uncertainty
The outcome was not known to a competent professional in advance.
Gate 02
Systematic progression
You worked from a hypothesis through experiment, observation and evaluation to a conclusion.
Gate 03
New knowledge
The purpose was to generate new technical knowledge, not just confirm what was already known.
Gate 04
Not excluded
It is not one of the activities the law specifically excludes, like software purely for internal administration.
We are grounded in AusIndustry and ATO guidance, and we bias toward precision: a false positive, routine work claimed as R&D, is the dangerous error. So when in doubt, we leave it out.
[ next ] - the number