For Engineering Director

Your engineers generate more code. You still carry the coordination cost.

Praxis turns individual AI speed into one shared delivery process: versioned hand-offs in git, human gates, and evidence linked to each requirement. What ships can be checked against what was asked.

Map one delivery flowTalk to us

01

Faster code, unchanged dates

Individual output can rise while review queues, integration work and rework still carry the delivery date. You need a way to see the accepted request, the technical decision and the implementation evidence together when a change reaches review.

02

The gap, in the delivery room

Each specialist may have a useful assistant but a different understanding of what is ready. A code patch cannot explain which business rule was accepted or which package version it followed. A handoff that includes the source links and a named owner makes that gap visible before it becomes review churn.

03

Why it doesn’t fix itself

The team needs shared artifact contracts and explicit ownership. BA and Architect work on the same product record; Developer works in the code checkout; Quality Harness reviews a particular result. Local Runtime is infrastructure in the chosen workspace, not a central team server or an access-control boundary between roles.

04

One product record. Clear ownership across the team.

In the illustrated topology, BA + BA Harness and Architect + Architect Harness share one product repository. BA accepts scope and creates the initial canonical WP; Architect enriches that same ID with technical decisions and a prepared handoff. The team explicitly makes the package and its referenced files available to the code workspace. Developer + Developer Harness implement there and record evidence. Quality Harness returns findings for review and, where configured, previews application. Git publication follows a separate approval and still awaits human merge.

The repository split is a deployment choice. Current Runtime uses the selected repo as its input lookup and code/test root; it does not automatically sync a sibling product checkout. The detailed topology below is also available in the handoff guide.

Shared product repository

BA and Architect work together here.

Business Analyst hands scope to Architect in the same product repositoryBusiness Analyst creates the canon work package. Architect preserves its ID and adds technical decisions in design. Each person uses their own harness.Business AnalystBA harnessArchitectArchitect harnessOne canon WP ID · technical design

Vision, requirements and the initial WP live in the canon. Architect prepares design/<WP> with the decisions, contracts and implementation scope.

Prepared WPChoose how the developer reads or receives it.Evidence and rework

Separate code repository

Developer implements. Quality reviews.

Developer produces implementation evidence for Quality HarnessDeveloper opens prepared requirements and design, implements scoped work in the code repository, and supplies evidence for review. Findings can return work. Publication requires its own approval.DeveloperDeveloper harnessQualityQuality harnessImplementation · evidence · review

The code stays in its own repository. A completed implementation, an applied quality outcome and Git publication are separate steps.

Each person installs the harness for their role. The shared artifacts connect their work. This is a team setup with an explicit handoff between repositories.
How the two repositories connect

Source Developer tools can use --design-dir for the product checkout and --product for the code checkout. They can write reports back under the design directory. Current Runtime uses one repo for local package discovery and checks: prepare the required inputs there explicitly. It does not automatically import or synchronize a sibling repository.

Follow the team delivery guide →

05

What changes for your organisation

  • Specialized roles, shared contract — each person uses the harness for their responsibility; the next person opens the named package and checks its links.
  • Visible checks — evidence shows what ran, failed or was skipped. A Quality finding can return to Developer for rework.
  • Clear approvals — canonical writes, approved Quality application and Git delivery are distinct. None implies automatic merge.
  • A path to history — the private Quality Platform is planned to retain observations per project and show an overview across projects. Discuss access and integration separately from the delivered Quality Harness.

The case

The Watchlink case describes a product context where preserving decisions matters. It does not establish deployment of current Runtime or a live Platform dashboard.

Proof you can open

For a selected WP, inspect the accepted scope, the Architect handoff, the code change, the checks actually run and any Quality findings. These artifacts support investigation; they do not automatically identify the exact cause or owner of every defect.

See the governance model

Bring one current delivery slice and map its repository ownership, package preparation and approval points with us.

Map one delivery flow
Talk to us