For Canadian startups claiming SR&ED

Your git history is your SR&ED evidence.
We turn it into CRA-ready records — every month, automatically.

Connect your repos once. On the 1st of every month, T661.dev extracts your commit evidence, clusters it into falsifiable hypotheses, and drafts a Technical Activity Log that answers CRA's five eligibility questions — while the work is still fresh.

Start free — connect a repoSee a sample log14-day trial · no card required

01

Claims are worth tens of thousands

SR&ED refunds up to 35% of eligible R&D salaries federally, plus provincial credits. For a small dev team, that's routinely a 5–6 figure cheque.

02

Reviews fail on documentation

CRA's first ask in a review: contemporaneous records of your systematic investigation. “We'll reconstruct it from memory at year end” is how claims get cut.

03

The evidence already exists

Your hypotheses, failed approaches, reverts, benchmarks, and breakthroughs are sitting in your commit history — the dated narrative just needs to be assembled from it, monthly.

How it works

  1. 1

    Connect your repos

    Install the GitHub App (read-only) and pick the repos that hold R&D work. Each becomes an SR&ED project under your claiming corporation, with its own project code.

  2. 2

    We extract the evidence

    Every branch is scanned. Commits are attributed to the month they were authored, deduplicated, and classified — experimental work, benchmarks, reverts, and abandoned approaches are surfaced; routine maintenance is set aside.

  3. 3

    AI drafts, you verify

    Claude clusters the month's experimental commits into falsifiable hypotheses (method → result → learning, with SHAs) and drafts the monthly review. Anything it can't confirm from the evidence gets a ⚠ VERIFY marker — logs can't be finalized until you resolve every one and confirm the hours.

  4. 4

    Download your filing bundle

    One zip per corporation: curated monthly logs plus the raw extraction data backing them, organized the way your SR&ED advisor wants it. Every log includes a reproduction command a reviewer can run against your repo.

acme-robotics__2026-03.md
## 6. Work Performed — Iterations (March 2026)

| Hypothesis / Approach | Method | Results & Metrics |
|---|---|---|
| **H1** — Streaming TTS chunking at clause
boundaries will cut perceived latency below
800ms without prosody artifacts | Implemented
clause-boundary splitter (`a3f81c2e`,
`9d04bb71`); benchmarked against sentence-
level baseline (`c2e94d10`) | p95 first-audio
1.9s → 740ms. Prosody regression at clause
joins — reverted joiner (`f81d3a55`) |

Real structure, sample content — hypothesis-driven iterations with commit SHAs, exactly what a reviewer wants to see.

Built around CRA's five eligibility questions

Every log answers them in named sections, so a reviewer never has to hunt — and neither does your SR&ED consultant.

Q1

Was there technological uncertainty?

Named constraints, with the standard approaches that were ruled out — and why.

Q2

Did you form hypotheses?

H1, H2, … — falsifiable statements, not a feature list.

Q3

Was the approach systematic?

Method → result → learning per hypothesis, with commit SHAs.

Q4

Was there advancement?

Monthly: what is now known or possible that wasn't before.

Q5

Were records kept?

Generated monthly from dated commits, with a reproduction command.

Pricing

A rounding error against the claim it protects.

Solo

$49/month

  • Up to 3 repositories
  • Automatic monthly logs + backfill any past month
  • AI curation with human verification gates
  • Filing bundle export (logs + raw evidence)
  • Unlimited team members per corporation
Start 14-day free trial

Team

$99/month

  • Up to 10 repositories
  • Automatic monthly logs + backfill any past month
  • AI curation with human verification gates
  • Filing bundle export (logs + raw evidence)
  • Unlimited team members per corporation
Start 14-day free trial

FAQ

What does CRA actually require?

CRA expects contemporaneous evidence that your work was a systematic investigation: what hypothesis you tested, what you tried, what happened, and what you learned — with dates. Reconstructing this at filing time, months later, is the most common reason claims get reduced under review. T661.dev generates the record monthly, while the work is fresh and the git history proves the dates.

Does T661.dev read my source code?

The GitHub App requests read access to repository contents, but the pipeline only consumes commit metadata: messages, authorship, dates, file paths, and line counts. Diffs and file contents are never stored. Your evidence bundle contains commit messages and statistics — not code.

Is the AI going to invent results?

It's instructed not to, and it's structurally prevented from sneaking guesses past you: any result the model can't confirm from commit evidence is tagged with a ⚠ VERIFY marker, and a log cannot be finalized until every marker is resolved by a human. Hours are never auto-accepted either — you confirm or override the suggested figure before anything is final.

Is this tax advice? Will this guarantee my claim?

No and no. T661.dev produces technical documentation from your repository history. Eligibility determinations, expenditure calculations, and filing are between you, your SR&ED advisor, and CRA. Good contemporaneous records make that conversation dramatically easier — that's the product.

What if my repos aren't on GitHub?

GitHub is supported today (GitHub App, read-only). A CLI for self-hosted and GitLab/Bitbucket repos — which also keeps all metadata extraction on your machine — is on the roadmap. Tell us if you need it and we'll prioritize.

Can I backfill months from earlier in my fiscal year?

Yes. Generation works for any past month your git history covers. Backfilled logs are honest about being derived from repository history; going forward, your logs are generated on the 1st of each month automatically.