The workshop gives your teams a level, a bottleneck and a plan. The training is how the plan becomes normal working practice. We teach in cohorts, in your repositories, on your real tickets, and we shape the content around the gaps the assessment actually found rather than a fixed curriculum.
We have watched teams come back from good, well-taught courses and change nothing. Not because the teaching was wrong, but because the gap between the exercise and the real system is where the habit dies.
Prompting is quickly learned. Getting AI to respect your error handling, your middleware pattern and your naming is the part that takes practice, and it can only be practised on your code.
People work through real items from your backlog. What they produce in the training is work you would have done anyway.
A certificate for sitting in a room proves nothing. We assess against defined competencies, so you know who can actually do it afterwards.
Six to twelve people learning the same practice at the same time gives you a critical mass that outlives the training.
These are the areas we teach in. Which of them a cohort gets, and how deep, comes out of the assessment. A team whose bottleneck is testing does not need the same sessions as a team whose bottleneck is requirements.
The honest version of AI fluency. What the models are good and bad at, where they quietly fail, and how to tell a plausible answer from a correct one. Claude Code and the other tools your team already pays for, used the way people who do this daily use them.
Most teams believe they are past this. Then we look at how much AI output actually ships without rework, and the number says otherwise.
The context system and the discipline of keeping it alive: the files the AI reads before every task, who owns them, and what happens when they go stale. Specifications precise enough that an agent can build from them. A review method that everyone applies the same way.
This is the part that moves a team rather than a person. It is also the part that quietly decides whether anything from the workshop survives the next quarter.
For teams heading further: running agents on real work, scoping what they may touch, reading what they did and knowing when to stop them. Alongside it the boundaries, what may go into a prompt and what may not, and how policy holds from the organisation down to the individual.
For leads and architects, the same material from the other side: what to ask for, what to measure, and what not to approve.
At the end of a cohort people are assessed on what they can do, not on whether they turned up. You get the results per person and per team.
Can they write and maintain the files the AI reads before every task?
Can they write a spec precise enough for an agent to execute?
Can they tell correct output from output that merely looks correct?
Can they get meaningful tests rather than coverage padding?
Do they know what may go into a prompt and what may not?
Can they scope, run and stop an agent on real work?
Not a certificate and a slide deck. Artefacts in your repositories and a clear picture of who can do what.
We fit the delivery around your sprints rather than pulling everyone out for a week.
6 to 12 engineers per cohort, mixed roles where it helps.
Sessions spread across weeks, with practice on real work in between.
On site, remote or hybrid. Remote works if cameras stay on.
At the end of a cohort, against the competencies above.
Yes. The workshop is where every team gets its level, its bottleneck and its plan, and that is what tells us what a cohort actually needs. Without it we would be guessing at a curriculum, which is exactly the generic training we are trying to avoid.
We would advise against it, and here is the honest reason: agents amplify whatever your conventions are. If those conventions are not written down yet, starting there just makes the mess faster.
Yes, if cameras stay on and people have their own repositories open. The exercises are hands-on, so passive attendance shows up immediately in the assessment.
Nobody fails. We tell you who is ready and who needs another round on which competency. That is the point of assessing at all.
Often yes, and for the team standard area we recommend it. Requirements and testing improve fastest when the people from those phases learn together with the engineers.
Per cohort, depending on scope and format. The assessment beforehand is free and tells us both which tracks you actually need.
Everything starts with the 30-minute assessment. It tells us where each team stands, and the workshop that follows tells us what the cohorts need, so you are not paying for training your people do not need.