Every agency website in 2026 says "AI-native." Ours does too, in its own words, so let's earn it: here is exactly how software gets built at Tridaz, including the parts most agencies leave out.
We run our delivery on Claude-based agent orchestration. In practice that means a senior engineer takes an incoming piece of work — a feature, an integration, a migration — and decomposes it into issues an agent can execute. Builder agents pick these up in isolated git worktrees, so parallel work never collides. They write the implementation, the tests, and the documentation together, not in sequence.
Then comes the part that makes the system work: adversarial review agents. Their only job is to attack what the builder agents produced — logic gaps, missed edge cases, convention violations, security smells. They are prompted to be hostile. Most of what they catch, they catch before any human looks at the work.
Not typing, mostly. The seniors here do four things that agents don't: architecture (what the system should be), decomposition (what the work is), judgment (reading the evidence — test results, review reports, staging behavior — and deciding what ships), and accountability (a name on the project, a person who answers for it in year two).
Here's the sentence that makes some engineers uncomfortable, and we'll say it anyway: on a high-volume week, no human reads every generated line. Nobody running agentic delivery at real volume does, and anyone claiming otherwise is telling you a comforting story. What we do instead is engineer the verification system — layered tests, hostile review agents, staging checks, hard human gates on high-risk zones like auth, payments, and anything touching user funds or identity. A senior judges the evidence, not the keystrokes. That's not a shortcut; it's the same principle as code review at any serious engineering org, scaled to the throughput agents produce.
An agent with no context produces the internet's average code. Ours don't start from zero: our conventions, security baselines, and integration patterns — fifteen years of delivery, including a national-scale government platform — are encoded as custom skills the agents apply on every project. Institutional memory that used to live in heads now lives in the toolchain. It's also why a three-person team isn't the risk it sounds like: the system is documented, encoded, and owned outright by our clients at handover.
Three things, measured: effort (~¼ of our own pre-agentic scope estimate on our first fully agentic build), team size (one senior operator plus agents), and where your money goes (senior judgment, not a pyramid of juniors learning on your budget). What it doesn't change: who's responsible. The model is simple to say and hard to fake — agents do the leverage work; seniors do the judgment.
If you want the numbers behind this, read the Privilio case study. If you want to argue with the model, genuinely — write to us. Arguing about engineering process is our idea of a good time.