Skip to content
Dolpheen

AI in testing, with the governance to keep it.

Agentic test creation works. What breaks is the estate underneath it — and the review process that was never designed for tests nobody wrote by hand.

Agentic testing works. The estate underneath often does not.

Generated tests arrive faster than anybody can review them. Within two quarters you have a suite nobody fully understands, running against a module base nobody curated, producing results nobody quite trusts.

AI test automation with review gates and self-healing tests.

  • Readiness assessment — is your process documentation, module base and test data good enough for agentic creation
  • Pilot scope where AI-assisted creation genuinely earns its place
  • Human-in-the-loop review gates and acceptance criteria for generated tests
  • Module hygiene, so generated tests build on curated foundations
  • Self-healing and maintenance strategy, including when to switch it off
  • Enablement of your team, so this is a capability and not a dependency

Deliverables.

  • Readiness report
  • Pilot scope and results
  • Governance model with review gates
  • Module curation standards
  • Guidance on where AI does not help
  • Team enablement

What we work with.

  • SAP Enterprise Continuous Testing by Tricentis
  • Tosca Copilot
  • SAP Signavio
  • SAP Cloud ALM
  • AI-assisted authoring and self-healing features across our tool set

Three steps.

  1. SAP Agent-led Quality Assessment or a non-SAP equivalent

  2. One pilot process, end to end, with review gates in place from day one

  3. Scale only what the pilot proved

An example.

We design the quality layer around SAP Cloud ALM and SAP ECT so that agentic test creation stays reusable, traceable and governable.

SAP Agent-led Quality

Straight answers.

Will this replace our testers?

No. It changes what they spend time on. Somebody still has to decide whether a generated test tests the right thing.

What if the generated tests are wrong?

Some will be. That is why review gates and expected results are part of the setup and not an afterthought.

Is our landscape ready?

That is exactly what the assessment answers, and the honest answer is sometimes no. Process documentation and module quality decide it, not the tool.

Discuss this service

Tell us what you want to pilot. We will come back with a readiness view and a scope where the pilot can actually prove something.