AI audit · agent setup · CI recommendations
AI audit and setup for small engineering teams that adopted fast and now pay for it in review queues, red pipelines and code nobody wants to own. Fixed price, fixed time.
Delivered remotely by default. On-site in Czechia when it earns the travel.
commits versus releases under autonomous coding agents, across 500,000+ developers
of developers do not fully trust AI-written code, and only 48% always verify it
of developers and of engineering leaders name reviewing AI code as the main bottleneck
of enterprise leaders report more production issues tied to AI-generated code
01 — The plateau
AI arrived positioned as extra engineers. It is a multiplier on the system it lands in, and most systems could not absorb it. The model worked; the workflow around it never changed.
We are not here to argue about whether AI delivers. We are here to look at the part that decides it: how your team reviews, gates and delegates to it.
If three of these are true, you already know
Review is where the week goes, and the biggest pull requests get the least scrutiny.
The pipeline became the bottleneck, so validation standards quietly dropped.
Green CI stopped meaning safe to ship.
Nobody can say what an agent is allowed to touch.
Half the team has an agent workflow, half does not, and there is no shared convention.
02 — The audit
Four areas, in this order — because the first one caps the rest.
Area 01
Can an agent find what it needs without asking a human?
Area 02
What is required before merge, and what that check actually proves.
Area 03
What must be read by a human, what is machine-checked, who owns the outcome.
Area 04
Credentials, environments, and whether "done" is something a machine can verify.
We work from a structured intake, two interviews — the engineering lead and one working engineer — and as much of the repository and pipeline as you are willing to show. A screen-share read-through under your NDA makes the assessment sharper; interviews and documents alone still work.
What you get
Fixed price
CZK 49,000
Two weeks, three sessions, one written assessment. Remote delivery included.
03 — Continuous integration
Every pipeline you have was sized for a developer who wrote code for four days and pushed once. Agents push constantly, from branches nobody watched being written, and they want the answer fast.
So the queue grows, people start merging around the gate, and the incidents arrive a week later. What we recommend is the gate structure for your stack: what should be required, what can leave the critical path, and where an agent-authored change has to be treated differently from a human one.
Feedback in minutes, not after lunch
The gate an agent waits on is the gate that decides your cycle time.
A red build that means something
When a third of failures are noise, everyone learns to rerun instead of read.
Diffs small enough to review
A size limit is a review policy, not a style preference.
04 — Agent setup
The tools are already good. What fails is the context they get and the leash they are on — configuration, policy and convention, not a better model.
01
Conventions, architecture boundaries, test commands, and the things it must never open.
02
Scope per task: which paths, which environments, which credentials.
03
A definition a machine can check, not an opinion at six on a Friday.
04
The boundary of production, and who owns the change after it lands.
05 — Workshops
Two two-hour sessions, remote. We present, your team listens and argues with us. Nothing to prepare.
Want to go further? A third two-hour session is hands-on: we set up your agent conventions and a CI skeleton together. You drive, we guide.
Topics
Booking
From CZK 29,000
Two sessions, up to fifteen people, remote. €1,150 in the EU, $1,500 in the US.
06 — How it runs
What you use, what broke, what you already tried. If this is not the right fit, we say so here.
Before anything is booked
Three sessions of two to three hours, scheduled around your release cycle. Nothing to hand over and nothing to prepare.
Weeks 1–2
Delivered within five working days of the last session, plus a 30-minute readout for whoever signs the budget.
Plus 5 working days
07 — Fit
Scope discipline is the whole product. If your problem needs forty people and a programme office, we are the wrong vendor and we will say so on the first call.
A team of up to ten engineers inside a larger organisation, or a whole startup under thirty people. One product, one pipeline, one budget holder.
Nothing here is a moral objection — these are just jobs we would do badly, and pretending otherwise wastes your budget.
08 — Questions
Still unsure? Ask directly — the first call costs nothing and we answer awkward questions properly.
Ask a questionIt makes the assessment sharper. We will sign your NDA, or work from interviews and documents if that is easier for you.
Good. This is about the system around the tool — which is where the gap between 240% more commits and 30% more releases comes from.
That is the entire product. We do not implement — no commits, no pull requests, no credentials. Your team keeps ownership of the codebase.
The bottleneck shows up earlier in small teams, not later — there are fewer people to absorb the review load. The sessions are the same; the written assessment is shorter.
Fixed: CZK 49,000 for the review, workshops from CZK 29,000. Remote delivery is included, and on-site is quoted with travel. We are not VAT registered, so the invoice shows the full amount with nothing added.
Yes, in Czechia, and you will see the travel line on the quote. Remote is cheaper and usually just as effective.
09 — Contact
Which tools, how many engineers, and the one thing that annoys your team most about AI right now. We reply within one business day — usually with either a call slot or an honest "not a fit".