I help take repetitive work off your team's plate

An engineer gathers context from the repository again. Someone else updates documentation after a code change. Reviewers keep checking the same things. These are places to look for a first automation candidate.

I work through the task with the people who do it: where the inputs come from, where the time goes, and how they decide the result is usable. If every task is different and only one overloaded expert can judge the answer, we'll choose another starting point.

We choose a recurring workflow with a result the team can check. It might be preparing documentation for a change or running a preliminary code check before review. The team's actual work determines the scope.

Before the trial, we record how that work gets done today. Then we give AI the relevant context and limits, and agree how to check the output. The engineer who accepts the work is involved from the start. They'll be the one using the result.

We try the workflow on ordinary tasks and keep the failed attempts in the record. Setup and correction time stay in the comparison. If producing an answer takes less time but reviewing it uses up the saving, the trial needs to show that.

The work leaves instructions for the chosen process and rules for checking its output. The team also gets a comparison with the original approach and a decision about the next step. A named owner knows when to use AI and when to use the existing method.

If the trial doesn't show a benefit, we record that and decide what to change. Promising a saving before doing this work would be a guess.