You need the thing built, not advised on
DevelopmentWe write the software. In house, on our own stack, with a short supply chain and the smallest blast radius we can design into it. You own what we build.
The AI security review, in full →
Most new software now ships with AI in the loop. Supabase alone reports that coding agents launch the majority of its databases, millions per month, by its CEO's own count. Once that software touches real money, customer records, or the public, somebody has to keep it safe, and almost nobody is assigned to. That is where we start.
Our specialty is use-case identification: vision-first, working backwards from where the business should be to the repeated work worth changing now.
Setup, training, receipts, a 7-day fix window, and day-30 follow-through.
The review is the same either way. What changes is how much of the fixing runs automatically and how much needs our hands on it.
These are not five products to choose between. They are the five shapes the work usually takes, and most engagements use more than one.
We write the software. In house, on our own stack, with a short supply chain and the smallest blast radius we can design into it. You own what we build.
One repeated task, handled end to end, with a review gate that stays yours. Nothing goes out until a person says yes.
We check agent behaviour against a fixed expected outcome, graded the same way every time, and never let an agent grade its own work. Where we have no measured baseline yet, the result reads unmeasured rather than pass.
Use-case identification, vision first, working backwards from where the business should be to the repeated work worth changing now.
People practice on the system they will keep using, on their own work, and leave with a proof note their manager can read.
The same engine we point at our own repositories, including the one this website lives in. Every check you get has been run on us first.
More than 35 static-analysis rules across Go, JavaScript, TypeScript and Python, plus credential-storage rules for Swift. No model call anywhere in the scan path, and the exact rule definitions that graded your code are hashed into your report so they can be re-run and checked.
The packages your project pins, checked against the public OSV vulnerability database. Anything we could not reach is listed as unmeasured, never as clean.
Keys, tokens, and credentials left in the tree where an agent can read them.
What your agents were actually told to do, read as source rather than taken on trust.
Whether AI answer tools describe you correctly when a buyer asks about you.
It is reported as unmeasured and held apart from a clean result. Two of the five engines exit quietly when they have skipped the work, so a green report you cannot trust is the failure we designed against first.
A written capability map, a live walkthrough where you watch your own AI act, and a signed record binding the report to the exact list of checks that ran.
You already know what those hours cost you, to the hour, better than any calculator we could put on this page. So here is our side of it instead.
The review is one fixed scope at one fixed fee, agreed on the free call before any work starts, so nothing about it moves once we begin. Fixing what the review finds is a separate engagement, scoped and priced per client after you have read it. Keeping the gates running once it is fixed is a separate subscription.
A review of what your AI can already do on its own: a written capability map and a live walkthrough where you watch your own AI act. The fee is agreed on the free call and does not move afterwards. Fixing what it finds is a separate engagement, quoted per client after the review, never before. Keeping the gates running as you ship is a subscription.
A freelancer builds it and leaves. The next change, the next fix, and the maintenance are each a new quote, and nobody carries the context between them.
Your own hours at your own loaded rate, which you know better than we do.
An AI system runs each of these. You keep the review gate, so nothing goes out until a person says yes.
Recorded run. Every date is real. This is us running our own method on ourselves.
STEP 1 OF 5
2026-06-16
Our own system queried five answer surfaces about us: ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity, Google AI Overviews, Google Knowledge Graph.
Done-with-you AI adoption: we find the first repeated task worth changing, build it in house, train the team on their own work, and leave receipts. Your documents, decks, and reports generate themselves in your own style, and the tools you keep stay connected. It starts with the free diagnostic.
A course or a few tools
You learn the ideas and try a prompt or two.
No working system
The new way of working never lands inside your own business.
Done-with-you build
Someone builds the system with you and trains the team.
Bring a task, a question, or just curiosity. We show you where AI fits, where it does not, the risks, and a first move. If it looks like we can help, you get a link to book a free 30-minute call. No sales script and no obligation. If we are not the right fit, we will say so and point you somewhere better.
The booking link opens once the business and task are filled. It goes straight to a calendar, so there is no new backend and no marketing list.
We write up what we learn as we build. Roughly monthly, and you can leave whenever you want.
Mailchimp emails you to confirm before adding you. We never sell your address.
We start with a review of what your AI can already do on its own, then fix what is unsafe and keep it fixed. We do the same work for large companies, where it takes more hands and a longer runway.
Training is tied to the work itself. People practice on the system they will keep using and leave with a proof note their manager can read.
Yes, as part of training we design and build the onboarding system end to end: the curriculum, the flows, the pages, and the backend behind them. That covers new hires ramping on real work and the customers or members you onboard into your own product or community.
We do not automate a whole business at once. We choose one task, build for it, review it, teach it, and only then widen the work.
The service comes first: we build you one working system and train your people to run it. Over time it grows into your own AI setup for the whole company, connected and owned by you.
Yes, when the exact tool or code can be checked. If it is public we compare it from source. Otherwise we verify the real thing before we advise.
We work with small businesses and with large companies. The review is the same either way. What changes is how much of the fixing runs automatically and how much needs our hands on it.
Someone who builds with you, trains your people on the real work, and stays for the day-30 check. That is what we do: a free diagnostic first, then one working system, then more systems that share one memory.