Shipped production work
Real backlog items get done during the engagement. We do it on your software, not on a sample app.
AI-assisted development
We work alongside your engineers in your repositories, using the tools you already license, on production software. Typical engagements run two to six weeks.
The usual state of the rollout
AI adoption often starts correctly: a few engineers experiment and become more productive. The difficult step is turning those individual methods into a way of working the whole team can trust.
That takes more than prompts. The team needs a shared idea of what to point the tools at, what context to give them, what a human still has to decide, and how review works.
A few engineers see large gains; the rest of the team cannot reproduce their approach.
Larger pull requests reach senior reviewers without a shared standard for evaluating generated code.
There is no agreement about what the tools may write and what they may not touch.
Tests generated alongside the code can share the same mistakes.
What you keep
We select backlog items with the team, complete them through delivery, and document the decisions that made the process work.
Real backlog items get done during the engagement. We do it on your software, not on a sample app.
What to point the tools at, what context to give them, what a human still has to decide, and how review works.
Where AI help is fine, where you need extra checks, and what stays human on purpose.
Generated code is judged by what it does in production — not just by tests the same tool wrote next to it.
Evidence, not a speed claim
SMB3 is how Windows shares files. Most teams buy a library. We wrote a full client in Kotlin, straight from the protocol spec, then proved it against real Windows and NAS servers. Then we ported the Kerberos authentication stack and wired it in. Then we ported the whole thing to Swift, and it runs natively on iOS.
Buying the library is usually the right call. AI made the reading and the writing fast. What made it correct was thirty years of judgment and a test rig that answered to the specification rather than to tests the same tools wrote.
The point isn’t that everything takes fifteen hours now. It’s that “too expensive to figure out” was a number, and the number moved.
Read the technical case study →Who you work with
The first call is with the people who will open the repo. No salesperson in the middle. Nothing sent overseas.
Thirty years building software. Twenty of them running this company in Las Vegas. The job is not to sell you the biggest project. Sometimes the honest answer is you do not need one.
See how the work is run →We work with your engineers in your codebase on real tickets. Together we figure out how to size the work, what context the tools get, what a person still has to decide, and how generated work is tested and reviewed. Typically two to six weeks.
No. No curriculum, no sample project. We work on your software. The team leaves with shipped work and a way of working that came out of their own codebase.
Usually not. We start with the tools, repos, process, and security rules you already have. If a tool is getting in the way, we will say so — we are not here to sell you software.
Typically $5,000 to $25,000 depending on team size, access, and scope. We quote a fixed price after the first conversation.
You do. Source code, written standards, prompts, examples, and practices. No per-seat licensing and nothing that requires us to stay.
Tell us which tools the team is using, where results are uneven, and what is in the current backlog. The first conversation is free.