Your engineers say they use AI. The velocity says they don’t.
Why isn't AI making your team dramatically faster?
What Level 1 is costing you
Why adoption stalls even when everyone agrees AI matters
.svg){kind=icon}
They may ship fast with AI, and you have no idea if any of it is solid. The output looks great in the demo. You find out months later what it cost you.
Your most productive engineers are the ones most sure they don't need to change. They're fast, so they tune out the thing that would make the whole team faster.
The person whose opinion your team trusts most is the one most against it. Modern frameworks, clean modules, documented interfaces. Easier to hire into, easier to ramp up, easier to retain.
You paid for the tools. Nothing changed, and you can't tell whose fault that is, the tools, the team, or the fact that nobody owns making it work.
What 6 weeks inside your team changes
- Sitting in on stand-ups and watching how your engineers actually use the tools, not what they say in the daily.
- Reading your codebase the way an agent reads it. I talk to people separately, including the sceptic. No slides, no homework for your team. Just observation.
- Mapping your team's real level, layer by layer, and naming the 3 to 5 things blocking the next one.
- Then a 30-day plan: which context files to write, in what order, who owns each, what changes in week one versus week four. Specific enough that your team can start preparing them immediately.
- Four weekly working sessions with your team.
- Review what they worked on that week, read the prompts that worked and the ones that didn't, fix what's breaking, and figure out what else AI can help with.
- Your engineers prompt with the codebase's real context.
- Your seniors stop fighting the tools and start directing them.
- The features stalled start moving.
- You stop wondering whether AI is helping, you can see where it is and isn't, and so can your team.
If implementation is needed
- writes the context layer with you
- the layer-specific instruction files
- the rules
- the MCP integrations, so your codebase is properly documented for the agent, not patched together ad-hoc.
Max stays involved to keep the structure honest; the build is the team's.
Trusted by the top tech leaders from
.webp)
.avif)
.avif)
.avif)
Partner-level Solution Architect
Find out what level your team is actually operating at
.avif)
In a 30-minute call, we'll review:
If we don't believe the engagement will pay for itself, we'll tell you.
FAQ
We work under your NDA, on your access controls. We don't take copies home. If you have a SOC 2 environment, we operate inside it.
If you frame it as a layoff prelude, yes. If you frame it as us helping the team work better with tools they already have, no. We help you with the framing before week 1 starts.
Diagnostics run $12k to $18k depending on team size and codebase complexity. We quote on the qualifying call after we understand your situation.
If we conclude in the first three days that a diagnostic won't help you, we end the engagement and refund the balance, minus a cost-of-time fee.
Usually yes, most engagements begin within 10 working days of the qualifying call. We run a limited number of diagnostics per quarter and book in order.