AI-native software delivery
We built a fleet of AI agents that covers the whole development lifecycle, from requirements through architecture, build, review, security scanning and real-browser testing. Your engineers sign off at every gate. AngularJS to React, PHP and Node to Go, monolith to microservices, all of it while your roadmap keeps moving.
You already know the codebase is a liability. AngularJS went end-of-life years ago. It takes four days to get a new hire productive in the PHP monolith, and nobody volunteers to touch the billing module.
You've scoped the rewrite three times. Same arithmetic killed it every time. Eighteen months of engineering capacity you don't have, a feature freeze the business will never sign off on, and a risk that lands on whoever approved it. So it slides to next year's roadmap, where it's been sitting since 2022.
A rewrite has always eaten the same engineers who were shipping the product. That's the part that changed.
Move off end-of-life frameworks and languages you can't hire for, while your team keeps shipping features.
Migrations measured in weeks.
They cover requirements through real-browser testing, and they keep looping until the build matches the spec.
Every merge reviewed by a named human engineer.
QA files the ticket. An agent triages it. You approve the analysis. The fix, the review, the security scan and the browser test all happen before a developer ever opens it.
The loop ends at a human-reviewed pull request.
Every agency on the internet says they use AI. Fine.
We built the assembly line. Named agents, defined handoffs, a human signature on every gate. Here's the floor plan.
Eight specialist agents, each with a single job and a defined handoff to the next. A browser has to confirm the software does what the requirement said, or the loop keeps running. When it fails, the testing agent reports straight back to the developer agents and the whole cycle goes again.
Reads the brief, the codebase and the open tickets, then writes out a structured requirement set with acceptance criteria attached. It also hands back a list of everything it couldn't resolve on its own, which is usually the useful part.
Human gate: your product owner settles the ambiguities and signs off.
The architecture agent maps the target design onto the system you already have, then works out a migration sequence that keeps production stable at every step.
Human gate: your architect approves the design before anyone writes a line.
The approved plan gets cut into tasks small enough to verify individually. When one breaks, it's obvious which one.
Developer agents work through tasks in parallel, in your codebase's own style, whatever that turns out to mean in practice.
A separate reviewing agent checks every change against the architecture decisions and the task's done-criteria. Anything it rejects goes straight back to step 04.
Static analysis, dependency audit and vulnerability scanning on every change. Not a gate at the end of the project. Every change.
A testing agent opens the software in a real browser and checks it by using it. This isn't a snapshot diff. Something actually clicks through the feature and looks at what happens.
Findings go back to the developer agents and the cycle runs again. Build, review, scan, verify, repeat, until the output matches what was asked for. Only then does a pull request reach your engineers.
Human gate: your team reviews and merges. Nothing lands on your main branch without a human signature.
Three human gates. Everything in between runs in parallel, overnight and through the weekend.
If your stack isn't on this list, the approach still applies. The method is stack-agnostic; the list is just what comes up most.
Modernization keeps getting postponed because it's always sold as a cliff. Old stack until launch day, new stack after. Nobody wants to stand anywhere near that.
So we don't build one. We load Angular custom elements inside a React app, and React micro-frontends inside an Angular shell. Both run in the same page, sharing routing and state. Migration happens one screen at a time, in production, while your team ships features on either side of the line.
No launch day. No freeze. The old stack just gets smaller every sprint until there's none of it left.
This runs every day against real backlogs. It's not a demo.
Same process they use now, same tracker. Nothing changes on their side.
It reproduces the issue, traces it through the codebase, and writes up a root cause with the specific files and lines involved.
This is the one step we won't automate. A wrong root cause gets expensive fast, so a person signs off before any code changes. Takes about a minute.
Human gate: someone on your team confirms the root cause.
Against the confirmed root cause, following your conventions.
A separate reviewing agent goes over the change. Anything it fails goes back to the fix step.
On the diff. Every time, including the one-line fixes.
It verifies the fix in a real browser by using the feature, then does a regression pass on whatever sits next to it.
For your engineers. A person reads it. A person merges it.
Human gate: your team reviews and merges.
Your engineers spend their time on two things: confirming root causes and reviewing pull requests.
The quickest way to lose a production codebase is to let an agent merge to main. We don't do it, and we'd be nervous about anyone who does. Here's exactly where the line sits.
A named person signs off the target architecture and the migration sequence before implementation starts.
We hand you the triage analysis and wait. No fix gets written against a diagnosis nobody checked.
Agents open PRs. People merge them. There's no route to your main branch that goes around a human.
Standard IP assignment. Your codebase never trains a model, and it never leaves the environments you've approved.
Scanned per diff rather than per release, so a vulnerability surfaces the day it's introduced.
Everything the fleet does is logged and readable. When someone asks six months from now why a line changed, there's an answer.
AWS Qualified Partner AWS Migration Competency ISO 9001:2015 GDPR Compliant
Placeholder section — real figures required before launch.
The situation: AngularJS front end, end-of-life, and no realistic way to hire for it. Two rewrite attempts already abandoned. A feature roadmap nobody would agree to pause.
What we did: Stood up a React shell alongside the existing Angular app using custom elements, then migrated screen by screen in priority order. All of it in production, with their team shipping features the whole time.
Outcome: TO SUPPLY: screens migrated, weeks taken, sector, scale (LOC / team size)
The situation: A monolith where every deploy needed sign-off from several teams, and a release took far longer than anyone wanted to admit.
What we did: Agent-led boundary analysis on the existing codebase, then pulled out Go services one bounded context at a time. The monolith stayed in production throughout.
Outcome: TO SUPPLY: services extracted, months taken, deploy frequency before and after
The situation: A defect backlog growing faster than the team could work through it, and every sprint losing time to regressions.
What we did: Wired the bug resolution workflow into their existing tracker. QA kept filing tickets exactly the way they always had.
Outcome: TO SUPPLY: bugs per day sustained, over what period, backlog reduction
You don't have to take our word for it, because you're the one reviewing it. Every change shows up as an ordinary pull request written to your conventions, and by the time it reaches you it has already been through an independent review agent, a security scan, and a real browser checking that it does what the requirement asked. Doesn't meet your bar? Reject it like you would any other PR. You still review everything. There's just a lot more of it arriving ready to review.
You own all of it. Code, tests, documentation. Standard IP assignment on signature. Your code never trains a model. Work happens in environments you've approved, with access you control and can pull at any time. We're ISO 9001:2015 certified and GDPR compliant, and we'll sign your security addendum.
That's the whole reason we don't do big-bang rewrites. Old and new run side by side in the same application and we move one screen, or one bounded context, at a time. Every step deploys on its own. If it breaks, it rolls back on its own too. Production never has to wait for the migration to finish.
Fair. Usually what went wrong was that you couldn't see anything until it was too late to fix cheaply. The agent loop leaves a running record of what happened and why, readable while the work is happening rather than summarised in a Friday status report. You also get named architects and reviewers you can actually talk to, instead of a ticket queue.
You walk us through the codebase and the constraint. We tell you straight whether this approach fits. Sometimes it doesn't, and we'll say so.
We go through your repository and send back a written plan: the sequence, the risks, a timeline we'd stand behind, and what your team would need to do.
One screen, one service, or a week of the bug workflow. You see the real output and the real review load before you commit to anything bigger.
Our agents and engineers work inside your process, your repos, your standards.
We own the modernization end to end against an agreed sequence and timeline, with your architect at the gates.
We run the resolution workflow against your backlog continuously.
Tell us the stack and the constraint. We'll tell you whether a month is realistic. If it isn't, we'll tell you that too.
No sales sequence. Just a technical conversation with an architect.