Choose the system increment
You prioritize a meaningful system increment. We make domain behavior, integration contracts, operational constraints, and acceptance testable.
Our owned-delivery model
Complex software.
Evidence behind every release.
Experienced engineers combine AI-assisted development with architectural judgment, review, and verification. We choose tools and delivery practices that help your system meet enterprise-grade expectations while maintaining pace.
AWS greenfield firstClient-owned repository10-day delivery loops
Bounded work. Visible decisions.
A 10-day loop.
A result you can inspect.
The backlog can change. The current sprint scope changes through an explicit trade-off.
Agree the boundaries
Confirm scope, dependencies, responsibilities, engineering capacity, applicable tool costs, and a commercial cap.
Build & verify
Engineers implement the increment with appropriate AI assistance. Review, behavioral tests, scans, and deployment checks create evidence; agent evaluations apply when the system uses agents.
Inspect & redirect
Review working software in the agreed environment, accept the result, and decide what comes next.
A bounded pilot can evaluate 2–4 delivery loops. Complex architecture and dependencies may need a separately scoped discovery and foundation phase. A 10-day loop is a review cadence, not a promise to complete an entire system in 10 days.
Clear ownership
You own the product.
We own the execution.
The separation gives your team control without requiring you to coordinate every delivery role.
You retain
- Product priorities and trade-offs
- Domain decisions and acceptance
- Source code and repository history
- Production approval and operating model
We deliver
- Discovery and testable specifications
- AWS and application implementation patterns
- Engineer-led implementation with appropriate AI assistance
- Checks, reviews, and release evidence
Evidence over assurances
Confidence is built
one check at a time.
Controls are tailored to the system’s risk. Architectural judgment determines what needs to be checked, how deeply, and by whom.
- 01Specify
Acceptance examples, interfaces, and non-functional constraints.
- 02Review
Pattern conformance and human or AI-assisted code review.
- 03Verify
Unit and integration tests, permission and failure-path checks, security and dependency scans, and agent evaluations where applicable.
- 04Deploy
Infrastructure as code, environment validation, and authorized gates.
- 05Operate
Logs, metrics, alerts, recovery guidance, and ownership handoff, with model cost visibility where applicable.
Architecture & scope
Start focused.
Choose patterns deliberately.
Our initial project-delivery scope is AWS greenfield applications with Python APIs and JavaScript or TypeScript web experiences.
Experience
Static web on S3 + CloudFront.
Server-rendered applications on ECS / Fargate.
AWS WAF where required.
Services
Python / FastAPI.
Lambda for bounded, event-driven work.
ECS / Fargate for long-running services.
Data & events
DynamoDB or Aurora PostgreSQL, chosen for workload needs.
S3, SQS, and EventBridge.
Foundation
CDK / CloudFormation.
IAM, KMS, Secrets Manager.
CloudWatch + OpenTelemetry.
These are reference options, not a mandatory stack. Latency, scale, consistency, recovery, security, and operations drive the choice. Brownfield modernization, additional clouds, and client-managed execution environments require a separate feasibility review.
Control by design
Security questions
deserve specific answers.
Where does source code live?
In the client’s GitHub Enterprise repository from the start, with protected branches, reviews, and an audit history configured for the engagement.
Who can deploy to production?
Production authority stays separate from STW execution. The default requires an explicitly authorized client role and environment approval. Federated, short-lived access and scoped roles avoid static cloud credentials in the reference model.
What data is retained or sent to models?
Data handling, approved model providers, retention, and access boundaries are agreed before launch. Sensitive inputs and actions are assessed against your security requirements; no provider or retention assumption is left implicit.
How do we exit or take over?
Source, history, specifications, architecture decisions, API contracts, infrastructure, evidence, and operating guidance remain with you under the project agreement. The exit test is a client engineer understanding, changing, verifying, and deploying the system using documented controls.
Before we start
We need decisions
and access.
A product owner, domain experts, and a security or cloud contact provide the direction and approvals that engineering cannot guess.
Agree the pilot measures.
Track lead time from scope approval to acceptance, accepted outcomes, escaped defects and rework, architecture and security findings, and your engineer’s ability to make and deploy a change.
The pilot should demonstrate both quality and delivery pace under your system constraints. Review correctness, reliability, operability, and ownership alongside lead time and agreed costs.
Give your next project
a clearer delivery path.
Bring a complex system, a demanding delivery program, or a critical engineering gap.