Make coding agents useful inside your codebase.
Repository-specific setup of coding agents, tool access, instructions, and review gates around real engineering work.
Show us the repo ↗When this is useful
Agents produce plausible patches but miss project conventions, fail checks, or need excessive supervision.
What we examine
Repository architecture, tests, task flow, permissions, documentation, and deployment constraints.
How the engagement moves
We inspect the repo, configure the working environment, run a representative change, and revise the workflow from its failures.
What you receive
Project instructions, agent workflow, quality gates, and an end-to-end example task.
Agree what completion means.
Before work starts, we confirm the scope, access, deliverables, fee, and the person who reviews the result. Findings and remaining unknowns should support a clear next decision.
What remains under your control
Engineers own review, merge, release, and changes to the agent’s access.
One possible application
A multi-package application may need explicit boundaries for generated code, migrations, and release checks.
This illustrates the kind of work; it is not a claimed client result.
Before we begin
How is the scope agreed?
We start with your context and the decision you need to make. We confirm the work, access, deliverables, turnaround, and fee before beginning. A larger implementation is a separate scope decision.
What should I bring?
Repository access and a representative task your team can review.
What does your review or build leave with us?
Project instructions, agent workflow, quality gates, and an end-to-end example task. Engineers own review, merge, release, and changes to the agent’s access.
Show us what needs to change.
Share the current workflow, the result you need, and what you have already tried.
Show us the repo ↗