AI ERP with agents inside the systems you run
AI phone and voice agents for real calls
LLM.coPrivate, self-hosted LLM deployments
Legal AI infrastructure for firms
AI RFP discovery and response drafting
Automatic.coBusiness process automation
CyberAttack.aiThreat detection and defense
Secure AI virtual data rooms1 sprint
Fixed scope
One deliverable, one timeline
Clickable
What you get
Not a slide deck or a mockup PDF
100%
Yours either way
Prototype code included, proceed or not
10 bus. days
To start
From a signed scope
What it tests
What a prototyping sprint actually de-risks
"Prototype" gets used loosely enough that it's worth being specific about what a sprint here is actually testing, because the answer changes what gets built during it.
Technical feasibility
Whether the hard part of the idea — a specific integration, a real-time feature, an algorithm you're not sure behaves the way you assume — actually works the way it does in your head. This is the part most worth testing first, because it's the one that's expensive to discover is wrong mid-build.
The workflow, clicked through by a stranger
A wireframe on paper looks coherent. The same flow, clicked through by someone who's never seen it, finds the step that doesn't make sense within the first two minutes. That gap between "makes sense to us" and "makes sense to a first-time user" is exactly what a sprint is built to surface early.
Where you actually sit against what already exists
A short, honest teardown of the two or three closest competitors — not to copy them, but to find out whether the differentiation you're planning to lead with is real or already commoditized. It's a cheap way to avoid discovering the answer after launch.
Whether the estimate holds up
A number quoted before anyone has seen a data model or a real workflow is a guess with a decimal point. Once the prototype exposes the actual complexity, the estimate that follows is built on what the software has to do, not on what it looked like it had to do from the outside.
The deliverable
What you leave a sprint with
Four concrete things, not a summary of a conversation. Each one is meant to be usable on its own, whether or not you build the next phase with us.
A clickable prototype
Wired-up screens that respond the way the real product would, built to be walked through — by you, by a stakeholder, or by a potential investor — without anyone narrating what's supposed to happen next.
A named risk assessment
The specific things that could go wrong with the idea, written down plainly rather than implied in a meeting. A risk that's been named in writing gets planned around; one that only ever got mentioned out loud tends to resurface later as a surprise.
A short competitive read
What the two or three nearest alternatives actually do, and where the idea in front of you is genuinely different from them versus where it currently isn't.
A real project plan and estimate
Team size, phased scope, and a timeline built from what the prototype actually revealed about the problem — not a placeholder number from before anyone had looked closely at it.
What it costs
Prototyping sprint engagements
Different sprints answer different questions. Pick the one that matches what you're actually unsure about.
| Sprint | Commitment | Timeline | What's included |
|---|---|---|---|
| UX / clickable prototype | Fixed scope | 1 – 2 weeks | Wireframes through a clickable prototype of the core workflow, tested with at least one person outside the team. |
| Technical feasibility spike | Fixed scope | 1 – 2 weeks | A working proof-of-concept of the single hardest technical piece — an integration, a real-time feature, a performance question — answered with running code, not an opinion. |
| Investor / stakeholder pitch prototype | Fixed scope | 2 – 3 weeks | A polished, demo-ready prototype built specifically to be shown in a room, plus the talking points behind the decisions it makes. |
| Full sprint (UX + technical + competitive) | Fixed scope | 2 – 4 weeks | All four deliverables above in one engagement, when more than one kind of risk needs answering before the build is scoped. |
Ranges assume US-based senior engineers and a single core workflow per sprint. A broader idea gets scoped as a longer sprint or split into phases rather than compressed into the same window — compressing it just moves the risk from the sprint into the build that follows.
When it's worth doing
When a sprint earns the week — and when to go straight to build
A prototyping sprint is the right call when the risk it removes is worth more than the time it costs. It isn't automatic for every project, and being clear about when to skip it is part of scoping it honestly.
Genuine uncertainty is worth a sprint
New territory for your team, an integration nobody has built before, or a workflow you're not confident holds together — this is exactly what a sprint is for. The cost of being wrong here, discovered mid-build instead of before it, is the thing the sprint is priced against.
High-stakes rooms are worth a sprint
Presenting to investors, a board, or a client who's deciding whether to fund the next phase. A working prototype makes a far stronger case than a deck, and the prep work doubles as real technical validation instead of pure theater.
A well-understood feature can skip straight to the build
Adding a known pattern — a login flow, a standard CRUD admin panel, a workflow you've already validated in an earlier version — usually doesn't need a separate sprint first. In that case the honest move is to fold discovery into the build's first phase rather than charge you for de-risking something that isn't actually at risk.
An internal tool with low blast radius often doesn't need one
If a misstep is cheap to fix and only your own team feels it, a short discovery conversation inside the build itself is usually enough. Sprints earn their cost when the downside of being wrong is expensive or hard to reverse — not as a default step before every project.
What happens next
From sprint to build, honestly
A sprint is designed to produce one of three outcomes, and all three are treated as a legitimate result of the week — not a sales funnel with only one acceptable ending.
Validate, then build
The prototype confirms the idea holds together. Code and design decisions from the sprint carry forward into the build, so the first phase of the real project starts ahead of a cold scope rather than repeating work.
The idea needs to pivot, not restart
The core direction is right but a specific assumption wasn't. We re-scope the part that changed and, when it's material enough, run a short follow-up sprint on just that piece rather than the whole idea again.
The idea doesn't hold up, and that's the sprint working
Finding this out for the cost of a sprint instead of a full build is the actual return on doing one. You keep the prototype and the risk assessment either way — they're deliverables, not sales collateral withheld pending a bigger commitment.
Related
Related services
Where the work goes next, whichever way the sprint lands.
Questions
Questions about prototyping sprints
What teams ask before a first call.
A prototype exists to test an assumption — technical feasibility, a workflow, market positioning — and doesn't need to be production-ready or handle real user data at scale. An MVP is a real first release: production infrastructure, real users, real data, and a scope narrow enough to ship in weeks rather than months.
A prototype is disposable, or partly disposable, by design. Some of its code and most of its decisions carry into the MVP, but it isn't the same artifact wearing a different name.
Most sprints run one to two weeks; a full sprint covering UX, a technical spike, and a competitive read typically runs closer to three to four. The right length depends on how many separate risks the sprint has to answer, which is exactly what we scope on the first call before committing to a timeline.
A clickable prototype you can walk through yourself, a written risk assessment naming what could go wrong, a short competitive read, and a real project estimate built from what the prototype revealed — not from a guess made before anyone had looked closely at the problem.
Yes. The prototype, its code, and the written assessment are deliverables of the sprint itself, not something held back pending a larger commitment. What you do with them afterward — build it with us, build it in-house, or shelve the idea — is entirely your call.
It depends on what the wireframes have actually tested. Static wireframes show what a screen looks like; they don't show whether the underlying technical approach works or whether a first-time user completes the flow without help. If real uncertainty remains on either of those, a sprint still earns its cost even with design already in hand.
Yes — it's one of the more common reasons to run one. A working prototype, built specifically to be demoed in a room, makes a materially stronger case than a slide deck, and the underlying validation work doubles as real technical due diligence rather than pure presentation polish.
That's treated as a successful outcome of the sprint, not a failure of it. Finding a fatal flaw for the cost of a one- to two-week sprint, instead of discovering it after a full build's budget is spent, is the entire point of running one — you keep the prototype and the written assessment either way.
Validated architecture decisions and, where it makes sense, working code carry forward into the build rather than being thrown away and restarted. The project plan from the sprint becomes the actual scope for phase one, so the build starts from a tested foundation instead of a cold estimate.