Agent workflows
The specific, named loops your team will run: code generation, refactor, review, test, document. Each loop has an owner, an input contract, and an exit criterion. No vibes-based agent work.
Claude Code, agentic engineering, AI coding adoption.
Agent workflows, review rituals, evaluation harnesses, an internal playbook. The engagement that takes a team using Claude Code or Cursor and makes the work auditable, repeatable, and worth scaling.
Starts from EUR 10k. Four to six weeks, plus an optional retainer.
If three of five ring true, the practice is missing, and the practice is what compounds.
The specific, named loops your team will run: code generation, refactor, review, test, document. Each loop has an owner, an input contract, and an exit criterion. No vibes-based agent work.
A rubric for reviewing AI-generated work: what the human checks, what the runtime enforces, what the team escalates. The reviewer is not optional. The rubric makes the review fast.
The lightweight test suite that tells you whether an agent is regressing. We do not build a model evaluation lab; we build the minimum your team will actually run on Monday.
A written document, owned by your engineering lead, that captures the practice. Onboarding new engineers takes hours, not weeks. Anybody can read it.
We watch the team work. We name what is already a practice (even if it has not been written down) and what is improvisation. We pick the three workflows worth codifying.
We write the workflows with the team. Owners, input contracts, exit criteria. The rituals become explicit.
We design the review rubric and the evaluation harness. They have to be small enough for the team to actually run.
We run the new practice with the team for a week. We tune. We document.
The internal playbook lands with the engineering lead. The retainer (optional) is monthly office hours: review the practice every four weeks, adjust as the tools and the team change.
You leave with the workflows, the rituals, the evaluation harness, and the playbook. They are yours; if you never work with us again, the practice survives the next tool cycle.
If we do continue, the practice runs against Process Native Software. The runtime carries governance and audit so AI-generated work is reviewable by default, not by exception. A change generated by an agent is a change governed by the runtime. The reviewer is faster because the floor is doing half the work.
A practice is what survives the next vendor migration. A toolkit is not.
EmpoweredHouse · AI Engineering Practice
What changes the number: the team size, the surface area (one repo or many), whether compliance review is on the critical path. Retainer is priced separately; most teams take it for the first quarter, then drop it.
How many engineers the practice must reach.
One repo or many.
Whether compliance is on the critical path.
We will quote the engagement in the fit call. If the team does not have a working practice yet, this is the wrong engagement, and we will say so.
A fit call is thirty minutes. If your team is already shipping with AI, we will ask how, why, and what is repeatable. By the end, you will know whether the practice is what you need, or whether you need something earlier in the stack first.