Aimeice
AI-Native Delivery · v2.0
UA
Human gate AI autonomous AI + human

How we build software AI-native

From request to release: AI is embedded across the entire lifecycle — tracker, repository, CI/CD, testing, monitoring. Humans own the decisions. AI handles everything in between. This is our standard and what sets us apart from a typical IT services company.

Navigate with or press Space
Why this way

Automate the entire pipeline,
not just coding

+30–40%
faster coding when AI lives only in the editor. That's what almost everyone does
<10%
actual end-to-end delivery gain: planning, QA, and releases stay manual — the bottleneck simply shifts
AI only in the editor — the bottleneck shifts to review and QA ≈ −10% end-to-end Plan Build · AI Review QA Release AI across the pipeline — every phase compresses ≈ 2× shorter cycle
Schematic: segment length = phase time within the delivery cycle · AI-accelerated

We automate every phase — from intake quality scoring to post-release telemetry. Quality is built into the process, not bolted on by manual QA at the end. That's why we don't sell "developer hours" — we sell a predictable, measurable delivery cycle.

Forrester, The State of Agentic Software Development 2026 · Anthropic Agentic Coding Trends 2026 · DX AI-Assisted Engineering Impact Report
Overview

Seven phases. Five human gates

Every task follows the same path regardless of client or repository. Color indicates who owns the phase: humans make key decisions, AI handles the work between gates.

01
Intake
human gate
02
Plan
human gate
03
Build
AI
04
Gate
human gate
05
QA
AI / human
06
Release
human gate
07
Telemetry
AI
human gate — a human makes the decision AI — autonomous AI + human — risk-based routing
01
1
Phase 01 / 07 · Human gate

Intake

A client request (Slack / email / Linear) enters the system. AI evaluates the quality of the description, checks the backlog for duplicates, classifies the task (feature / bug / chore), drafts acceptance criteria and an estimate, and compiles clarifying questions — separately for the client and for the internal team.

Input
Raw client request
Output
Structured task: AC + estimate + risk label
Gate PM / lead approves AC and estimate before the task moves to Todo. Without sign-off, it doesn't move. This is our "spec" — the primary artifact AI works against.
02
2
Phase 02 / 07 · Human gate

Plan

For non-trivial tasks, AI prepares a technical plan: approach, which files and areas are affected, architectural decisions, risks, and test coverage strategy. It reads the repository's AGENTS.md to respect conventions and the tech stack. Trivial tasks pass through this phase automatically.

Input
Approved AC
Output
Tech plan + risk score
Gate Developer / architect approves the plan before any code is written. This catches incorrect architectural assumptions when they cost minutes, not days.
03
3
Phase 03 / 07 · AI autonomous

Build

AI implements the task in an isolated git worktree and asks clarifying questions along the way — about implementation, business logic, or architecture — directly in Linear. Writes tests derived from the spec, not from its own code (otherwise tests just validate the bug). Has a token budget per task and escalates to a human if stuck.

Input
Approved plan
Output
PR + tests + draft changelog
Control No human gate, but automated checks: lint, build, and tests must pass locally before opening a PR.
04
4
Phase 04 / 07 · Human gate

Gate

CI/CD runs on the PR alongside a separate AI reviewer with a different lens (security, performance, regressions — not the agent that wrote the code). Coverage, SAST, secret scan, SCA. AI posts a report to Linear: which cases are covered and uncovered, edge cases, risks, which areas and files need attention, and a diff risk map.

Input
PR
Output
Reviewed PR + Linear report
Gate Developer code-reviews and gives final approval. AI review blocks on security findings, failing tests, or coverage dropping below threshold; other notes are advisory.
05
5
Phase 05 / 07 · AI / human by risk

QA

The route is determined by risk score, not story points. Effort ≠ risk. Low-risk → AI QA runs test_cases in the browser (Playwright), deploys to staging, checks flows, and leaves only uncovered cases for the human. High-risk (auth / payments / migrations / PII) → always a human QA, regardless of task size. All routes include regression testing on affected areas plus a smoke suite.

Input
Approved PR
Output
QA report + passed / failed label
Gate For high-risk, human QA sets deploy:stg, deploys and manually verifies. Slack receives a notification: which branch is on stg / prod and who initiated.
06
6
Phase 06 / 07 · Human gate

Release

Developer sets deploy:prod only if the task requires no manual actions (migrations, scripts) — otherwise deploys manually following the migration checklist. Feature flags decouple deploy from release: code ships to prod "dark" and is enabled by a flag. AI generates release notes; deployment strategy (canary / blue-green) is chosen by risk; every deploy has a rollback plan.

Input
QA passed
Output
Deployed to prod · status released
Gate Prod deploy authorization belongs to lead / admin only. This is the last human check before the client sees the change.
07
7
Phase 07 / 07 · AI autonomous

Telemetry

After release, AI runs a prod smoke test, monitors error rates for the first minutes, and triggers an auto-rollback on anomaly. Separately tracks pipeline metrics: cycle time, % AI-authored PRs, rework rate, escape defect rate, how many issues human QA caught after AI. Feedback loops back to Intake.

Input
Released
Output
Confirmed working-in-prod + metrics + client notification
Control No human gate — AI monitors and escalates to a human on anomaly. Closes the delivery loop.
Principles · 1 / 2

Seven rules everything rests on

Phases are the mechanics. Principles are the reasons. They separate a real system from "throwing AI everywhere."

01

Spec-first

The spec is the primary artifact — more important than the code. AC is versioned and approved by a human before work begins. A vague spec means AI fills gaps with guesses about a business it doesn't know.

02

AGENTS.md in every repo

One file with conventions, the tech stack, and do/don't for the agent. The de-facto standard of 2026 (GitHub, OpenAI, Anthropic, Cursor, Sourcegraph). Cheap to set up, immediately raises quality.

03

Risk-based routing

QA routing is determined by risk, not effort. A 1-point change in billing is high-risk. Auth / payments / migrations / PII always go to a human — no exceptions.

04

AI reviews, but not itself

Generator and reviewer are different agents with different lenses. The same agent has the same blind spots. The reviewer looks at security, performance, and regressions.

Principles · 2 / 2

Seven rules everything rests on

Plus the one clients value most: you see the process, not just the result

05

Humans own the gates

Five gates belong to humans: AC, plan, PR approval, high-risk QA, prod deploy. AI handles all execution in between. Accountability always stays with a person.

06

Measure autonomy

Not utilization — but % AI-authored PRs, eliminated review hours, cycle time, and escape defects. This is our proof to the client and our internal improvement loop.

07

Security by default

Webhook signatures, execution isolation per repo, secrets outside of code, audit log. For FinTech / EdTech clients this is the first question — we have the answer ready.

Transparency by default

AI reports, deploys, and metrics are visible to the client in Linear and Slack in real time. You watch tasks move through the pipeline — not just a demo at the end of the sprint.

Differentiation

Typical services company vs Aimeice

This isn't "the same process, just faster." It's a different operating model.

Traditional IT services
Aimeice · AI-Native v2.0
AI lives in the IDE as an assistant
AI embedded in the full pipeline: tracker, repo, CI/CD, observability
Quality = manual QA at the end
Quality built into every phase + AI QA with risk-based routing
Estimates by gut feeling
AI-drafted AC and estimates, human sign-off as a gate
Release is manual and stressful
Feature flags, auto release notes, rollback plan, telemetry
Progress measured in "hours"
Progress = autonomy metrics: cycle time, escape defects
Speed OR quality
Speed AND quality — gates make this compatible
Proof

What we measure and show the client

You see the same dashboards we do. Delivery metrics are part of the collaboration, not internal reporting.

Cycle time
Time from intake to released. The primary indicator of delivery predictability.
end-to-end
% AI-authored PRs
Share of merged PRs authored by an agent. A direct measure of autonomy.
autonomy
Eliminated review hours
Human time saved thanks to AI review and automated reports.
leverage
Escape defect rate
Bugs that reached prod. Mature AI-QA practices report up to 96% fewer escaped defects.
quality
AI QA coverage
% of test_cases covered by AI before the task reached human QA.
coverage
Rework rate
Share of tasks that returned for rework. Indicates spec and plan quality.
stability
Playbook · Case

One feature — multiple repositories

The rule: one issue = one repository = one PR. Anything touching backend, frontend and website at once becomes a parent issue with sub-issues — one per repo. The parent carries the business value; sub-issues run the pipeline

Parent · business value
Redesign checkout
AC · risk:high · cross-repo contract · integration QA · release notes
[BE] API + migrations own PR · Plan → Build → Gate
[FE] UI flow own PR · Plan → Build → Gate
[WEB] Landing page own PR · Plan → Build → Gate
01

Contract — at the parent's Plan phase

Before splitting, we lock the interface between repos: API schema, types, feature-flag names. BE / FE / WEB build in parallel against the contract. A mid-flight contract change sends the parent back to Planning — never a silent fix in one of the PRs

02

Deploy order

Backend ships first — backward-compatible, behind a disabled feature flag. Then frontend and website. The flag turns on once every part is in prod — no repo ever blocks another's deploy

03

Two-level QA

Sub-issue: verify its own part against the contract — AI can do this. Integration QA happens only on the parent, on stg, once all parts are ready. If any sub-issue is risk:high, the parent inherits it and goes to a human

04

Released — once per feature

The parent closes when every part is in prod and the flag is on. Release notes and the client update are one message, from the parent. Clients see features, not PRs

Playbook · Flow rules

How not to end up with 100 issues In Progress

AI removes the limit on starting work — but the gates (humans) remain the limit on finishing it. Without rules, the pipeline just piles up queues in front of every gate

No limits WIP limits + aging alerts 8 6 9 In Review QA Deploy 2 3 4 In Review QA Deploy
Issues queued in front of human gates · dashed line — WIP limit (≤ 2 / ≤ 3 / ≤ 5)
01

WIP limits at the gates

In Review ≤ 2 per dev · QA ≤ 3 per engineer · Ready to Deploy ≤ 5 per team. Limits sit on human-gated phases, not AI phases. Column full — you don't pull new work, you clear it

02

Agent concurrency cap

Cyrus runs at most 3–5 build issues at a time. "Dump 30 issues on it overnight" = a review queue that eats the entire gain and makes review shallow

03

Stop starting — start finishing

A dev's morning order: review others' PRs and answer the agent → own code → only then pull new work from Todo. Priority goes to moving issues right-to-left across the board

04

Aging alerts instead of standups

n8n checks Linear daily: an issue stuck 24+ hours in front of a gate → ping the gate owner in #ai-pipeline. The queue is a metric you see, not something you recall

05

Batch the gates

The PM approves ACs twice a day in fixed slots, not one issue every hour. Gates are cheap when batched and ruinous for focus when drip-fed

06

Clients see parents

Sub-issues are internal mechanics. Client reporting shows features: "3 in progress", not "10 issues". Less noise — more trust

Playbook · Rollout · 1 / 2

Week 1 — foundation and intake

Goal: Linear becomes the pipeline's source of truth, and every new request enters through AI intake

Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri 1 2 3 4 5 6
Indicative weekly schedule · row numbers match the plan items below
1
Phase statuses + labels in Linear Team Lead + PM · 1 day
Intake → Todo → Planning → In Progress → In Review → QA → Ready to Deploy → Released. Labels: risk:high/low, deploy:stg/prod, type:*, ai:*. Issue template with mandatory ACs
2
Parent / sub-issues policy PM · policy
One issue = one repo = one PR. Multi-repo work → a parent with sub-issues; the contract is locked at the parent's Plan phase
3
AGENTS.md in top-3 repos + PR template Devs · ~2 h/repo
Conventions, stack, high-risk zones, how to run tests, do/don't for the agent. The cheapest improvement with the biggest payoff
4
CI gates on active repos Team Lead · 1–2 days
Lint + build + tests required to merge, gitleaks for secrets. Automatic gates that never sleep
5
Cyrus intake agent Team Lead · 1 day
On every new issue: description quality check, duplicates, drafted AC + estimate + questions (client-facing / internal). The PM only edits and approves
6
Slack structure PM · 1 h
#deploys, #ai-pipeline, client channels kept separate. Rule: a Slack request becomes a Linear issue within an hour, with the link posted in the thread
Playbook · Rollout · 2 / 2

Week 2 — execution and control

Goal: the first issues run the pipeline end-to-end, and gate queues are visible and managed

Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri 1 2 3 4 5 6
Indicative weekly schedule · row numbers match the plan items below
1
Cyrus build pilot Devs
3–5 risk:low issues, including one parent with sub-issues — to exercise the multi-repo flow. Not everything at once
2
AI reviewer on PRs Team Lead
Claude Code Action separate from the generator: security findings block, everything else is advisory. Report → comment on the Linear issue
3
WIP limits + aging alerts n8n + PM
Limits on In Review / QA / Ready to Deploy; 24+ hours without movement → ping in #ai-pipeline
4
AI QA for risk:low QA
Playwright runs the test_cases on stg, report goes to Linear. For risk:high — a manual QA checklist, always a human
5
Deploy notifications n8n
Branch, environment, initiator → #deploys. Deploy transparency for the team and the client
6
Friday metrics by hand PM · 30 min
Cycle time, how many issues went through the AI pipeline, rework rate. The baseline we automate the dashboard from
Deferred Client auto-digests, the metrics dashboard, canary / blue-green and auto-rollback — next iteration. Two weeks deliver a working SDLC 2+ skeleton on the low-risk stream; from there we expand based on metrics, not gut feeling
What this means for you

It's a system.
Not promises.

Predictable cycle time Fewer defects in prod Metrics instead of status theater

We don't sell developer hours. We sell a measurable delivery cycle — with human accountability at every gate and AI speed in between.

Aimeice

Ready to build together?

Let's discuss how AI-Native Delivery can accelerate your delivery and reduce defects in your project

Model 01 / 20