Senior engineers inside your team, without the wait to hire

Inside your process, not next to it. They use your repository, your branching and release habits, your build checks, your tracker and your stand-ups. Your engineers review everything we submit, so nothing merges that your own team would not have written. There is no second list of work and no separate status process to reconcile later. This matters more for a software company than for most clients: whatever we write becomes part of a product you will be maintaining for years after we have gone.

It starts with a 30-minute call. After it you get the scope, the dates, the price and a start date in writing, before any work begins. Two shapes cover most software companies: senior engineers added to your team for an agreed period, or one defined module priced and delivered as a single piece of work. Running it afterwards is a separate monthly fee covering watching, fixes inside agreed times, security updates and improvements. We do not publish a rate card, because it depends on how senior the people are, how long you need them and how much of the running you want us to take on.

You get documents, tests and a walkthrough with the engineer who will own the code from here, so your team can maintain it without us. That is the default, not a paid extra. If you would rather we kept it alive, the monthly arrangement covers alerts, fixes inside agreed times, security updates, small improvements and a monthly report on uptime, what broke, what we fixed and what we suggest next. We run to 99.9% uptime on the software we look after. You can end that arrangement and keep everything, because the code, the pipeline and the documents have been yours from the first day.

You do, from the first commit. The same goes for the designs, the documents, the tests and the deployment configuration. There is no private framework of ours underneath that ties you to us, and work built for one client never turns up inside another client's product. Where we use free, openly available components we tell you which ones and under which license, so the security reviews your own customers put you through do not find a surprise months later. Nothing we do should ever make your product harder to sell.

Yes, and we put them in front of live users rather than into demos. One example is a support assistant for a fintech scale-up that still runs today. In practice it means agreeing what the feature must never do, restricting it to the information it is allowed to see, checking it against real examples before release, recording what it does once live, and keeping a way to reverse a bad change in minutes rather than in a release cycle. If your own customers are in a regulated industry, we build the written record in from the start, not after the first awkward question in a security review.

On the least access that lets us do the job. Named engineers only, access limited to the repositories and environments the work needs, and no real customer information in development. Where realistic material is needed for testing we use anonymized or made-up records. Access is withdrawn when the work ends. We work inside the controls you already have, including your own security review and the promises you have made to your customers, and we fill in your supplier questionnaire honestly. We do not claim certifications we do not hold, and we say plainly where a control sits with you rather than with us.