Tell us what you are building

A conversation, not a proposal. Tell us roughly what you need and we will tell you whether it is something we should be doing — and if it is, what the first month would look like.

That depends on what it is, and anybody who quotes before understanding the problem is guessing. You get a written scope with a number in it before you commit to anything, and it is yours to take elsewhere.

Most engagements start producing something you can open within the first few weeks. We would rather show you working software early and be corrected than disappear for a quarter and be right in private.

No fixed floor, but the work has to be worth setting up for. A few days of somebody’s time is rarely good value once the context has been learned; a month is a different question.

Most of our work is. Our afternoon is Europe’s morning and our evening is New York’s, so there is real overlap with both without anybody taking calls at four in the morning.

You do, all of it, including the parts we reuse from our own templates. The code lives in your repository from the first commit. Nothing is licensed back to you and nothing is held as leverage.

That is a large part of what we do. We work to standards we did not set, in repositories we do not own, on release schedules we do not control — and we will say plainly when something needs a specialist we do not have.

Yes, and before the first conversation if you want one. A good deal of our work is delivered under a client’s own brand, so working quietly is normal here rather than a concession.

A written update every week and a working build you can open. Not a status percentage — the thing itself, running, so you can disagree with it while disagreeing is still cheap.

You get a system you can run without us: the architecture documented where the code is, a runbook written as we go, and a handover planned from the start rather than assembled at the end.