Every profile we send is a specific person with a CV and a reference. You interview them, you can decline them, and the arrangement is monthly rolling with thirty days notice. That is the whole commercial model.
Every one of these has its own page, because the thing that decides a good hire is different in each case, and a page that could be produced by changing one word is worth nothing to you.
Where the brief most often describes the wrong role.
You are not committing to a direction by starting. Moving up or down is a conversation, not a renegotiation.
| Shape | Suits | Commitment |
|---|---|---|
| Fractional, a few days a month | A stable system that needs patching, small changes and somebody who knows it | Monthly rolling |
| One dedicated engineer | Active development, a backlog, or covering a departure | Monthly rolling, 30 days notice |
| Small team — two to four | A product with a roadmap, or unfreezing a system nobody dares change | Rolling, reviewed quarterly |
| Team plus delivery lead | You want accountability for an outcome instead of capacity | Project plan, staged |
Not the job title. What the code has to do, what it runs on, and who will maintain it. This is where we most often tell people they need a different role from the one they asked for.
You get; an honest view on the role, freeNamed individuals, with their two strongest areas stated plainly and the gaps stated too. Not a bench summary.
You get— two or three profiles, usuallyTechnically, however you like, with your own team. You can decline anybody without explanation and we will come back with others.
You get, your process, not oursComprehension first. An engineer who has not read your system is not yet useful on it, and pretending otherwise is how the first month gets wasted.
You get, a written view of your codebaseYour stand-ups, your board, your channels, your definition of done. Monthly reporting on what changed and what we would fix next.
You get, capacity that works to your prioritiesWe would rather answer these before you ask. If you are comparing suppliers, they are worth putting to all of them; the answers vary more than the rates do.
The live site had a page for each of these. They said very little that this block does not, so they now point here, which is more honest and more useful than fifteen hundred words of the same paragraph rearranged.
The commercial questions, answered once, here.
An agency introduces you to a person and takes a fee; after that the relationship is between you and them, and if it does not work out you start again. We remain accountable for the work. That means a named second engineer who also knows your system so absence is covered, peers our engineers can escalate to, not being alone on your problem, and a replacement at our cost if somebody is not working out rather than at yours. It also means we will tell you when the honest answer is that you do not need us, which is not a conversation an agency is structured to have.
Our engineers work a shifted day that gives four to six hours of overlap with US and European working hours, and that overlap is protected, not best-effort, stand-ups, reviews and anything needing a conversation happen inside it. What changes is that you stop expecting an instant answer at any hour, which most teams adapt to within a fortnight and some find improves how they write things down. If your work requires eight hours of overlap, say so early; there are arrangements that get closer, and they cost more, and we would rather price it than have you discover the constraint in month two.
Yes, and we would rather have that conversation openly than pretend it does not happen. If an engineer has become central to your business and both they and you want it to be permanent, blocking it serves nobody, we would agree terms and help with the transition. What we will not do is present someone as a dedicated engineer while quietly treating the engagement as a recruitment pipeline, which is a common pattern in this market and one worth asking every supplier about directly.
Tell us early, and specifically. Most of the time it is fixable and it is usually not a capability problem, unclear priorities, a gap in context nobody filled, or a mismatch between the work and what the person is strong at. If it is not fixable we replace them at our cost, and the second engineer already knowing your system is what makes that a handover rather than a restart. What we would ask is that you raise it in week three, not month three; by then the frustration has usually hardened into a decision and everyone has lost something.