
Assistants raised how much code gets written. They did not raise how much gets checked, so the queue moved from writing to reviewing and the delivery metrics stayed where they were. The constraint moved. The tooling did not follow it.
Bring what you measure delivery on today. You leave with the specific stage where your review capacity is binding, and what would have to change for the tooling spend to show up in the numbers.
Adoption is high, satisfaction is high, and lead time is roughly where it was. All three can be true at once, and the reason is structural.
Writing code was never the slow part of a mature delivery pipeline. Speeding it up loads more work onto the stage that was already the constraint, and a faster feeder into a fixed bottleneck produces a queue, not throughput.
A reviewer reading generated code cannot ask the author what they were thinking, because the author does not remember thinking. So review gets slower per line at exactly the moment there are more lines.
Most teams cannot say what a unit of work cost before the tools arrived, which makes the return unprovable in either direction. That is a measurement failure, and it is fixable in a fortnight.
Output is not delivery. Merged, verified and running is delivery.
The point is not to slow generation down. It is to move the check next to the work, so review stops being a stage that everything waits in.
Work starts from an agreed specification rather than from a prompt, so there is a stated intent for the change to be judged against later.
AgentConformance to the spec, the blast radius of the change, and the tests that matter, all evaluated as the work happens rather than in a queue at the end of it.
IndependentA person still signs. What changes is what they are handed: a change with its intent, its checks and its impact attached, instead of a diff and a hope.
HumanTool agnostic by design. This wraps the AI coding tools your team already chose, and it survives you changing them.
Engineering leaders discount vendor delivery statistics, correctly. So the proof here is a calculation you run on your own numbers and an argument you can disagree with.
Arithmetic on numbers you supply, with no benchmark and no vendor pricing in it. The success rate field is the interesting one: you cannot fill it in unless something checked the outputs. Open the calculator.
The full case for the position on this page, including the part where we say what would have to be true for us to be wrong. Read it.
Written as commitments rather than capabilities, because a capability cannot be breached and a commitment can. See the commitments.
This is a working session, not a discovery call that ends in a proposal you did not ask for.
{{ f.a }}
Run the calculator first if you want the conversation to be concrete. Thirty minutes, and we will tell you where your constraint really is.