You know your business. We know AI. Studio is the team, the platform, and the agent layer you put to work alongside your company — so the things that used to take months ship in hours, and your people learn how to live in an AI-first world while they're at it.
Day of Week is an AI-native platform connecting farmers, restaurants and guests across Norway. We built it with the same small team, the same toolbox, and the same approval gate we're offering here — coding agents on one side, our own context tooling on the other, a human signing off every change.
The case study is the company. If you want to see what “months to hours” looks like in production, you can already use it.
You know your business. We know AI.
Not a SaaS, not a chatbot, not a consultancy deliverable. Studio is a working AI org — reading what happens, proposing what's next, and shipping the change once you approve.
We start with your code. Beyond that, you decide what Studio sees — meeting transcripts, the emails and docs that matter, customer data, market signals. You scope it; Studio builds a working model from what you share. Versioned, queryable, current. Not a static wiki.
OKRs, projects and decisions are connected. Studio sees when a task doesn't match a key result — and says so. Out loud.
Every morning: what happened, what needs your call today, what Studio is ready to do itself — pending your sign-off. Dashboards don't make decisions. This does.
Specialist agents draft the work — outreach, documents, code, customer responses. Humans review and approve. You stay in control. The AI does the typing.
When Studio can't do something you need, it says so — and proposes the change to itself. An engineer (or an AI coding agent under supervision) merges it. New capability, same day. This is how the “months to hours” claim survives contact with reality.
AI proposes. Humans approve. Studio ships.
Traditional software delivery: backlog, prioritise, build, release in months. Consulting: scope, estimate, deliver in weeks. Studio is a different shape — a continuous loop with a human approval gate.
From chat, from a workflow, from a teammate writing it down. No project intake form.
Connects the need to what it already knows. Surfaces scope and open questions.
A concrete change — code, copy, workflow, schema. As a plan you can read, not vibes.
Someone with ownership reviews. Nothing ships without a signature. Always.
▾ approval gateWe plug into your stack, your repo, your apps — and the change goes live where it's needed.
Months to hours. Not a promise — a way of working.
Same team. Three shapes of engagement, depending on how deep you want Studio sitting in your operation.
A couple of tiers below read * * * * *. We're not hiding a number — we haven't set one yet. Those land with our founding partners, against work we've actually shipped together. Placeholders until then.
Be one of the first few in and you come in as a founding partner— with direct say in what Studio becomes. What goes in each tier, what doesn't, how we package it. We're shaping this with you, not for you.
We know what we want Studio to be. You almost certainly have thoughts we don't. Help us shape it so it fits the way youactually work — that's the whole point of going in early.
In return we ask one thing: every week, tell us what's working and what isn't. That's the whole ask. You end up with a Studio that's been bent to fit youroperation, not someone else's.
Fixed scope. One capability, in production, in days.
Continuous. A senior team + coding agents working alongside yours.
Strategic. A senior partner inside your leadership rhythm.
If you hire us, you hire our stack with us. Here it is.
The Standard flavor of AI-dev for hire means working in this stack with us. We've sharpened it over hundreds of shipped changes — coding agents on one side, our own tooling on the other.
Our primary coding agent for repo-level work. Reads code, proposes changes, opens PRs against your branch.
Second coding agent in rotation. Different model, different strengths — we cross-check on hard refactors.
Open coding agent we run when you want everything self-hostable. Same workflows, your infra.
Our own tooling for high-fidelity meeting and voice-memo capture. Transcripts feed Studio's context layer.
Our tooling for turning meetings, documents and decisions into a queryable graph Studio's agents can reason over.
Different IDE, different CI, different cloud, different agents under the hood. We adapt our team and our tooling around your environment. Boot time goes from hours to days — that's the only real difference.
No discovery month, no procurement marathon. Two paths in — pick the one that fits your environment.
You accept the toolbox above. We plug Claude Code / Codex / OpenCode into your repo, point our voice intake and decision graph at your meetings and docs, and a change ships the same day.
Our team builds the bridges — different agent runtime, different CI, different cloud, different intake pipeline. Same team, same approval model. Boot takes days; everything after that runs like Standard.
One thing it asks of you: be willing to work a new way.
The AI hype is real — for code, for operations, for the boring middle of your business. We've been living in it for a while. If you're willing to shift how you work, even a little, we'll bring you up to speed on the inside.
You don't need an AI strategy team or a year of training. You need someone who's already done it next to you for a few weeks.
The thing you've been talking about in standups for two years — the weird auth shim, the schema-drift problem, the test suite that takes 40 minutes — is usually a single afternoon of focused agent work plus a human reviewer. The hardest part left is writing the release note.
A short questionnaire — ten minutes, no call. Our own Studio instance reads your answers, checks them against what we can actually do, and emails you back the same day with where to start and what we'd ship first. A real person at Day of Week signs the reply.