Find out what AI coding agents can actually do inside your development team, and how much of your codebase they have already written. I point working agents at your real repos and workflows, then hand you the evidence, a 90-day roadmap, and one quick win already installed and running.
AI coding agents are past the experiment stage. The teams using them well ship noticeably faster. But between "a developer tried it once" and "the team runs on it" sits a set of decisions almost nobody has made: which workflows, which guardrails, which supervision habits, which tasks to hand over first. The audit answers those questions for your team, with evidence from your own codebase.
I run real AI agents against your repos, your build, and your day-to-day workflow, and record what happens. The report names where agents work today, where they fail and why, and reads your commit history for how this code was produced and what review it received. Findings from your own codebase, with the evidence attached.
Which workflows to hand to agents first, in what order, with the expected gain and the guardrail each one needs before it is safe to hand over. Sized for your team and your codebase, not copied from a conference talk, and written to be forwarded: your engineering lead can execute from it and your board can read it.
I do not just recommend. Before the week ends, one real workflow on one team is running under agent supervision, using the supervision tooling I built and use myself every day. It is open source, it stays with you, and it is the proof that the roadmap is not theoretical.
A working session with your dev leads, and with whoever is paying for the answer. I walk the findings, the roadmap and the installed win, defend the reasoning under challenge, and answer the questions that decide whether this sticks. Everything I produce is yours to keep.
A 45 minute call with your dev lead. We agree the target repos and the one workflow that hurts most. You grant read access. That is the last meeting until Friday.
My agents work your codebase while I evaluate the results: what they handle, where they stall, what your setup makes hard. I build the roadmap and install the quick win.
You receive the report and roadmap, see the installed workflow running, and I hold the walkthrough session with your leads. Everything is yours to keep, whatever you decide next.
Center Consulting is me, Soren Frederiksen, plus the agent fleets, and that is the point. My development runs on AI coding agents, every day, supervised through mission control I built because I needed it, and published as open source. The method I audit your team against is the method I use myself, daily, on real work. I am also CTO and co-founder of an enterprise analytics platform, in production with enterprise customers. You get the person who built all of it, not a junior staffed in my name.
Read-only access to one or more repositories, under NDA. I work on my own machines, retain nothing after delivery, and can work entirely on-screen with your team for codebases that cannot leave the building.
No. The method is tool-agnostic and my own supervision tooling runs Claude Code, Gemini, and local models side by side. I audit against your stack, and part of the roadmap is which model fits which of your workflows.
About 45 minutes from a lead developer on day one, and a one hour walkthrough on day five. The point of the audit is that I do the work, not you.
One real workflow from your backlog, running under agent supervision on one team before the week ends. A test-coverage sweep, a documentation pass, a dependency update pipeline, whatever your codebase says is the right first candidate. Something your team can watch working, not a slide about potential.
No. Agents run under accounts configured for no training retention, and my report contains findings about your process, not your source code.
It is the honest number for a week of my time and a straight answer. The comparison is technical due diligence: a boutique firm charges tens of thousands for the same calendar time and a Big Four practice can reach six figures. Those engagements grade the code that already exists. This one grades whether your team can build the next version at the speed the market now sets, and it leaves one working improvement installed. If it does not show you a path worth more than you paid, I refund it.
A code audit tells you the condition of what is already written: coverage, dependencies, static analysis, architecture risk. It does not tell you how that code got there, whether the review process would catch a confident wrong answer, or whether this team can ship the next version with agents. I answer the second set of questions. The two are complements, and I am happy to work alongside a diligence firm rather than instead of one.
That is the Agentic Team Installation, a fixed-price two to three week sprint where I install the full method in one of your teams. The audit fee is credited against it. No obligation either way; the roadmap is yours.
Or you will keep wondering, and so will your competitors. One of those is free.
Book your audit. $7,500 flat.