Where VerifAgent is different
A fundamentally smarter approach to structuring and scaling hardware design workflows.
Native UVM, SVA, functional coverage, and PSS generation — not a wrapper around a coding assistant. Understands testbench architecture,scoreboards, and checkers out of the box.
Plugs into Synopsys VCS, Cadence Xcelium, Siemens Questa, or open-source simulators. Supports OpenAI and Anthropic today, on-prem LLM on theroadmap. No forced migration, no rip-and-replace.
VerifAgent runs a structured workflow — spec intake, test plan, testbench build, run/debug, coverage closure — with the engineer reviewing and approving atevery gate. You stay in the loop; the agent does the work.
What You Get
Generated from your specs in ~30 minutes. UVM and PSS supported. Reviewable section-by-section, editable, exportable.
Architecture, agents, scoreboards, checkers, SVAs, and functional coverage — auto-generated and integrated with your EDA tool.
In hours, not months. With build logs, regression dashboards, and pass/fail tracking built in.
Debug, RCA, exclusions, and final coverage report in ~4 weeks — down from 4+ months traditionally.
Real-World Impact
Faster time-to-market vs. traditional verification
Reduction in verification engineering cost
Engineering hours saved per IP, across early customers
Question answer
How is VerifAgent different from Cursor, ClaudeCode, or Codex?
Cursor, Claude Code, and Codex are excellent general-purpose coding agents — but they're built for software engineers writing application code, not silicon engineers writing UVM testbenches. They treat SystemVerilog as another language in the long tail, without understanding the methodology that surrounds it: UVM factory patterns, phase ordering, TLM connections between agents and scoreboards, functional coverage modeling, SVA semantics, or how a test plan maps to a verification closure strategy.
They also stop at the code. A DV workflow isn't "write a file and commit" — it's spec intake, test planning, testbench architecture, build, simulation, debug, and coverage closure, with EDA tools in the loop at every stage. A general coding agent has no concept of choosing between multiple tools like simulators, waveform viewers and linters or parsing a coverage database, or deciding which failing seed to triage first.
VerifAgent is purpose-built for this. It runs a structured, multi-stage agentic workflow — spec intake → test plan → testbench → build → run/debug → coverage closure — and each stage is gated so the engineer reviews and approves before moving on. It integrates natively with Synopsys, Cadence, Siemens, and open-source simulators, and generates UVM-native output that conforms to your team's existing methodology and coding standards. Not a coding assistant that can autocomplete SystemVerilog — an agentic platform that runs the verification flow.
What about hallucinations? How do I trust the generated testbench?
This is the right question to ask about any LLM-based tool. Our answer has three parts:
Grounding. VerifAgent generates from your specs — not from the model's memory of what a typical UART testbench looks like. Every test scenario, checker, and coverage point is traceable back to a section of your source documentation.
Simulationas the oracle. Generated code is compiled and run against your DUT using your EDA tools. Testbenches that don't compile, scoreboards that mispredict, or coverage that doesn't hit are caught by the simulator, not by faith in the LLM. This is the same execution-based verification loop that the research community has converged on for LLM-generated code.
Human-in-the-loop at every gate. Engineers review the test plan before the testbench is built, review the testbench architecture before tests are implemented, and review coverage before closure. You catch issues where they're cheapest to fix.
CanVerifAgent handle our existing UVM methodology and coding standards?
Yes. VerifAgent reads your existing testbench components, VIPs, and house coding standards as inputs, and generates code that conforms to them. If your team uses specific naming conventions, factory overrides, phase ordering, or message ID formats, it adapts to those rather than forcing its own style. For derivative IP and mid-project work, it extends your existing testbench rather than replacing it.
What EDA tools and simulators does it work with?
Synopsys VCS, Cadence Xcelium, Siemens Questa, and open-source simulators like Verilator. You configure your simulator command, flags, and environment variables once in the Simulation Tool settings, and VerifAgent uses that for every run. No migration, no rip-and-replace — VerifAgent plugs into the flow your CAD team has already qualified.
How do you handle IP security? Our RTL and specs can't leave our environment.
This is the single biggest concern we hear, and it's legitimate — RTL and architectural specs are among the most valuable IP a chip company owns.
VerifAgent supports two deployment models today. For teams already approved for cloud LLMs, we integrate with OpenAI (via OpenAI or Azure Cloud) and Anthropic (via AWS Cloud) using enterprise endpoints that don't retain or train on your data. For teams that can't send IP to external APIs, on-prem LLM deployment is on our roadmap — we're working with customers on GPU-hosted deployments today.
During tool eval, our team works directly with your IT and CAD organizations on deployment, network policy, and data handling. No workflow goes live until your security team has signed off.
What kind of uplift should we realistically expect?
Measured across our early NPU, memory, and IoT chip customers: 6×–9× acceleration on verification timelines, 350–900+ engineering hours saved per IP, and — in several engagements — critical bugs surfaced that the manual flow had missed. A medium-complexity IP that traditionally takes 7+ months finishes in roughly amonth.
Your results will depend on IP complexity, spec quality, and how much existing testbench infrastructure VerifAgent can reuse. We scope this during the SoW alignment phase before any commitment.
Will this replace my verification engineers?
No — and the teams seeing the biggest gains are the ones who stopped asking this question and started asking "what do my engineers do with the 900 hours we just got back?"
VerifAgent takes over the mechanical work: translating spec sections into test scenarios, wiring up testbench components, writing the 80th cover bin, chasing regression failures to root cause. Your engineers spend their time on the parts that actually need human judgment — architecture decisions, corner-case reasoning, debug of hard bugs, and the next tapeout rather than finishing this one.
How does an evaluation work? What's the commitment?
A typical eval runs about 5 weeks, structured in seven phases: IP selection and requirements, SoW alignment, tool deployment with your IT and CAD teams, and then live demos and reviews of test plan generation, testbench generation, and testcase generation, ending in a final delivery review. At the end of the eval you have working artifacts for a real IP from your own design — not a canned demo.
Build faster with clarity and confidence
