AI-Assisted Development
Outcome, method, and proof
Three ways to evaluate whether this is the right service line for your team.
Faster delivery, same quality bar
AI-augmented engineers ship features and fixes at a rate traditionally staffed teams can’t match — without the regressions, technical debt, or “AI slop” that come from agents running unsupervised.
Spec-driven, not vibe-coded
Senior engineers write the spec. AI agents (Claude Code, Cursor, Copilot) execute against it. Every commit is reviewed before merge. Plan → Execute → Verify on every story.
Twenty years before AI; AI-native today
20+ years of shipping production software, 400+ client projects. The discipline that delivered before AI is the same discipline that makes AI agents productive now.
Three engagement shapes
The work fits one of three patterns. We match the engagement to the work, not the other way around.
Development takeover
You hand us an existing codebase or a defined scope. We staff it, ship it, and hand it back. Fixed-scope or sprint-based. Best for teams with a clear backlog and capacity gap.
Augmented team
Our engineers embed alongside yours. Same tooling, same standards, same review process. Best for teams who want practitioner-level AI fluency on their own product, not a separate vendor.
Ongoing support
Post-build, post-modernization, or post-launch. We carry the codebase forward — features, fixes, optimization. Monthly retainer, scoped backlog.
Where this fits — and where it doesn’t
Self-qualify before the call.
Best fits
High signal · book the call- Active backlog, capacity gap, budget for senior engineers
- Product builds where AI velocity matters but quality is non-negotiable
- CTOs concerned about AI introducing chaos into the codebase
- Teams that want practitioners, not staff augmentation
- Codebases where architectural conventions exist and matter
Not a fit
Low signal · we'll redirect- Pure body-shop staffing requests (we’re not a recruiter)
- Teams unwilling to adopt spec-driven workflows
- Projects under $30K total (too small for our model)
- “Build my SaaS” without an engineering co-pilot on your side
- Teams looking for cheapest-bid offshore augmentation
Questions buyers actually ask
Q.01 How is this different from a traditional dev shop? +
Traditional dev shops staff projects with engineers who write code by hand. We staff projects with senior engineers running AI coding agents under a spec. The output is faster and the cost structure is leaner, but the discipline (senior review, architectural conventions, code-quality standards) is the same as any serious shop.
Q.02 Do we have to use Spec-Driven Development? +
Yes, on engagements where we’re shipping code. SDD is what makes AI agents productive instead of chaotic; running them without it produces the “vibe-coded” output everyone complains about. If you don’t want SDD, we’re the wrong shop.
Q.03 What does "AI-augmented" mean in practice? +
Senior engineers run Claude Code, Cursor, or Copilot as part of their daily workflow. The agent generates first-pass code against a written spec; the engineer reviews, refines, and commits. The agent never ships unsupervised. The engineer is the source of truth.
Q.04 Can you take over an existing codebase? +
Yes. Onboarding to an existing codebase is a structured first sprint — we read, document, identify the architectural conventions, and produce a “rules of the house” spec the AI agent respects on every subsequent commit. This is where most shops struggle and where senior engineers earn their pay.
Talk to a senior AI engineer.
30 minutes. We’ll tell you which engagement shape fits — or recommend a different pillar if AI-Assisted Development isn’t the right starting point.