AI agents that earn their place in your engineering team.
For six to twelve weeks we work inside your codebase, setting up agents that plan, write, test and review code alongside your engineers. When we leave, your team owns all of it and knows how to run it.
One change, from ticket to release
Who does each step of the work
- Ticket: Engineer, writes the ticket
- Plan: Engineer, approves the plan; Agent, drafts a plan from the codebase
- Code: Engineer, steers when needed; Agent, makes the change across files
- Test: Agent, writes and runs tests
- Review: Engineer, final review; Agent, first-pass review
- Merge: Engineer, approves the merge
- Release: Agent, deploys, rolls back on errors
Agents do the legwork. Your engineers approve the plan, the review and the merge.
An illustration. Every team works differently, so we map your actual process in the first two weeks.
What we set up
Most teams start with one of these and add the rest once it works. After a look at your repositories, we'll tell you where we think you should begin.
Agentic coding
Agents that take a ticket, read the parts of your codebase that matter, propose a plan and make the change across as many files as it needs. We configure them around your conventions and architecture, including the mistakes your team already knows to avoid.
What you end up with
- Agent configuration checked into your repo
- Project rules and context files
- A plan, edit and verify loop your engineers trust
Automated review and testing
Every pull request gets targeted tests and a first review before a person looks at it. Your reviewers spend their time on design and intent, because the obvious problems have already been flagged.
What you end up with
- Review agent running in your CI
- Test generation for changed code
- Reports on flaky tests and regressions
Agents in CI/CD
Pipelines where agents fix broken builds, update dependencies and prepare releases. Each one runs with narrow permissions, logs everything it does and stops wherever you want a person to approve.
What you end up with
- Scoped credentials for each agent
- Approval gates you define
- Audit log and rollback
Choosing the tools
The market for AI development tools changes every month. We test the options against your languages, scale and security requirements, then tell you plainly which ones are worth paying for.
What you end up with
- Written evaluation with running costs
- Migration and integration work
How an engagement runs
Engagements last six to twelve weeks, on a fixed scope we agree in writing before we start. Billing follows milestones. This is how a full twelve-week engagement is usually split.
Weeks 1 to 2
Embed
We join your standups, read the codebase and follow a few pieces of work from ticket to production. You get a written account of how your team works today and a plan for what to change first.
- Workflow audit
- Prioritised plan with costs
Weeks 3 to 10
Build
We roll out the agreed changes in your repositories and pipelines, one team at a time. Your engineers pair with us throughout, so the people who will maintain the setup are the ones who helped build it.
- Agents configured for your codebase
- Pipeline integration
- Permissions, logging and rollback
Weeks 11 to 12
Hand over
We write the documentation, run training sessions and make sure someone on your team can change the setup without us. If you want ongoing support we offer a retainer, and you can end it whenever you like.
- Documentation in your wiki
- Training for your engineers
Who you'd be working with
dCrypt Ltd. was founded in 2026 by engineers who spent the years before LLMs shipping production software to hundreds of thousands of users.
We still think like the people who get paged when something breaks. That shapes how we bring agents into a codebase: slowly enough to trust, with a clear way back if something goes wrong.
What you can hold us to
- We write code
- Our work arrives as commits, configuration and pipelines in your repositories. There is no strategy deck at the end.
- We build where you work
- Everything runs in the environment your team uses every day, so there is no gap between a promising demo and the thing you rely on.
- Agents get the least access they need
- Scoped permissions, a person signing off wherever you want one, and a log of every action. We work within your security review.
- You can replace us, and our tools
- We choose tools on merit and write down why. If something better comes along, your team can switch without a rewrite.
Usually a good fit
- Teams of roughly 5 to 100 engineers
- A product in production with an established codebase
- Pressure to ship faster without lowering the bar
Probably not a fit
- Greenfield prototypes and hackathon projects
- Solo developers, who are already well served by off-the-shelf tools
Before you get in touch
If your question isn't here, put it in your brief and we'll answer it directly.
Tell us where shipping slows down.
A few lines about your team and codebase is enough. We reply within one working day, and if we don't think we can help, we'll say so.
Prefer to write directly?
[email protected]