🔍 Read the full analysis: Gewerkton’s New Look, Built In Two Days With AI Agents on ThorstenMeyerAI.com

Prime Big Deal Days · Oct 6–7Offer from Amazon

Get the latest gadgets delivered free — and shop member deals

• Fast, free delivery on millions of items
• Access to Prime Big Deal Days deals on October 6–7
• Prime Video, Amazon Music and more included

Start your free Prime trial →Free trial for eligible customers · Cancel anytime

As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.Hide

Gewerkton, a construction-site documentation tool, replaced the design of its web app, iPhone and Android apps, Studio, icons and 40-language website on Oct. 2 and 3, 2026. As detailed in the original analysis, its publisher, ThorstenMeyerAI.com, says AI coding agents carried out the implementation from written plans, while founder Thorsten Meyer approved the plan, checked results and released each part.

The new design, named HORIZON, changed 281 hard-coded web-app colour values into design tokens, with 11 exceptions retained, and restyled 47 cards. The phone app moved to the new look in version 0.5.0; Studio received light and dark versions, and all 26 icons were re-rendered in Blender. The website comprises 529 pages in 40 languages. The publisher says 1,583 files were uploaded without errors.

The project also generated 228 AI film runs for five regions; 222 had region-specific versions, and eight help videos were made. The publisher qualifies the two-day timeline: a draft of the look existed on Sept. 26, so the stated period covers execution from an approved plan to the live website, not design from scratch.

Meyer directed a fleet of AI coding agents, identified as Codex and Claude. They worked in a separate copy of the code on their own branch. According to the account, no part was merged or delivered before Meyer approved its release. The source is a first-party account: it discloses that Gewerkton is built by its publisher, which says it is documenting its own work and lessons.

Human Checks Shaped the AI Relaunch

The account offers a concrete example of AI agents being used for a multi-part software and website release, while also showing where human review remained part of the workflow. The agents handled implementation against written plans; Meyer retained approval over releases, film reruns and decisions requiring access to external services. That distinction matters because the phrase “built with AI agents” does not mean the process was autonomous.

The work crossed several products and formats, including a mobile release, a multilingual website and hundreds of generated film runs. Its reported defects also show why passing automated checks was not treated as sufficient. A visual inspection caught icon tiles that obscured labels in dark mode and colour-masking failures in films. The example is relevant to teams weighing agent-led implementation: the publisher reports substantial automated testing, but some of the most visible problems were found by a person looking at the output.

The account is not an independent evaluation of agent productivity, code quality or cost-effectiveness. It provides project-specific metrics and lessons from the company that made the product, rather than a controlled comparison with a human-only redesign.

The Plan Behind the Two-Day Claim

The work began with a plan that listed open decisions, available options and recommendations. Meyer approved the recommendations, and the agents implemented changes on a separate branch. The publisher says deviations from the plan were recorded and handled conservatively. For example, the original cobalt colour produced a contrast ratio of 4.38:1 against a light background, below Gewerkton’s stated working standard of 4.5:1 under WCAG 2.1 AA. The team darkened it to reach 4.80:1.

Testing included checking the web app in 200 views across English, German, Japanese and Hindi; at widths of 390, 834 and 1,440 pixels; and in light and dark modes. The publisher reports no overflow or console errors in those checks. The phone app passed 853 of 853 tests and Studio passed 2,158 of 2,158. The website passed seven test suites and was checked in five regions at all three widths, including again after upload.

Those results came with qualifications. Eight web-app tests failed across seven files. The publisher says six files failed in the same way on the main branch and one failure depended on test order, passing when run alone. It says the redesign neither caused nor fixed those failures. For films, reviewers inspected the middle frame of 157 mirrored films and watched each reworked film again at 10, 50 and 90 percent of its duration.

““Two days” needs one qualification.”

— ThorstenMeyerAI.com, the publisher and Gewerkton’s builder

Reported Results, Open Questions

The available account comes from Gewerkton’s publisher, which disclosed its relationship to the product. It does not include an independent audit of the reported test results, the agents’ code contributions or the timeline. The material also ends while describing project costs, with only one figure supplied: about $134 in actual costs for the films. It does not provide a complete cost for the redesign or a comparison with a conventional development process.

Some quality issues remain in progress. Five major findings from an Android test on a Pixel 10a were described as non-blocking and scheduled for version 0.5.1. The account does not specify when that release will ship. It says nine regional film runs were later reshot with Meyer’s approval and passed visual checks, but does not establish that every earlier regional issue has been resolved.

Version 0.5.1 and Film Follow-Up

Gewerkton says the five major findings from the Pixel 10a Android test are scheduled for version 0.5.1. One issue involved camera-screen buttons breaking words across lines after the redesign increased type size and padding; the German word for “cancel” wrapped onto two lines. The company has not stated a release date in the supplied account.

The film work also required follow-up after automatic colour masks missed red details in shadows and warm backlighting. The publisher says 24 files were cleaned after visual review, 10 regional versions with leftover red were temporarily replaced by the European cut, and nine were later reshot and checked. Further status updates would clarify whether the remaining temporary substitutions have been replaced and how the team will handle film-generation failures in later work.

Key Questions

What changed in Gewerkton’s HORIZON redesign?

The redesign covered the web app, iPhone and Android apps, Studio, 26 icons and a 529-page website in 40 languages. The publisher also reports 228 AI film runs for five regions.

Were the AI agents responsible for the whole project without human review?

No. The publisher says Codex and Claude implemented changes from written plans, but Thorsten Meyer approved the plan and each release, reviewed visual results and authorized paid film reruns. Apple’s license agreement also required an action only Meyer could take.

What does Gewerkton mean by “two days”?

The relaunch took place on Oct. 2 and 3, 2026, but a draft of the design had been made on Sept. 26. The two-day description applies to execution from the approved plan through the live website, not to starting the design from nothing.

What problems did the team find?

Visual review caught icon tiles that covered labels in dark mode and red details missed by automated film masks. The publisher also reported 76 failed film jobs, none billed, and five non-blocking findings in an Android test that it scheduled for version 0.5.1.

How much did the redesign cost?

The supplied account gives an actual cost of about $134 for the films, but it does not provide a total cost for the redesign or the full project.

Source: ThorstenMeyerAI.com