Our engineers run agentic coding sessions for migrations, test coverage, refactors and documentation, with every change human-reviewed before merge. It compresses the mechanical work so specialist time goes to architecture and edge cases.
We use agentic coding where the work is well-specified and verifiable — framework upgrades, repetitive component work, test authoring, data migrations and documentation. We do not use it to make architectural decisions, and nothing reaches your repository without a named engineer approving it.
What agentic coding actually changes
A meaningful share of software work is mechanical rather than creative: upgrading a framework, writing tests for existing behaviour, renaming a concept across two hundred files, documenting an API, migrating data between schemas. It is necessary, it is time-consuming, and it is where deadlines quietly consume quality.
Agentic coding compresses that work substantially. An AI agent reads the codebase, plans the change, implements it and reports what it did — with a named engineer reviewing before anything merges. The result is that the work most likely to be skipped under pressure, particularly tests and documentation, actually gets done.
Where we use it, and where we do not
We use it on well-specified, verifiable tasks: migrations, test authoring, repetitive component work, refactors with clear intent, documentation. Verifiability is the criterion — if a human cannot readily check the output, it is not a candidate.
We do not use it for architecture, data modelling, security design or anything touching payments. Those decisions have consequences that outlive the sprint, and they require someone accountable. Published intervention rates for coding agents still sit near a fifth of tasks, and our review rule is absolute regardless: no AI-generated change reaches your repository without an engineer approving it.
This is also why we do not price as though AI removed the need for senior engineers. It removed some of the typing. Judgement is the part you are paying for, and pretending otherwise produces exactly the codebases we get hired to rescue.
What it means for your project
Faster delivery on mechanical scope without adding unfamiliar contractors mid-project, more consistent test and documentation coverage, and specialist time redirected to architecture and edge cases. We are explicit about using these tools because you are entitled to know how your software is built — and because the quality controls around them are part of what you are buying.