Move from individual Claude Code usage to a standardized AI-native engineering workflow — agentic development, skills, MCP, subagents, hooks and the review standards that keep them safe.
Member of the Claude Partner Network
We train teams on Claude, find the workflows worth changing and ship them to production, backed by training and technical support from Anthropic’s partner program.
Target audience
This is not an introduction. It assumes your engineers have Claude Code installed and are already getting value from it individually — and that this is now the problem.
For CTOs
A CTO does not need more engineers who like Claude Code. They need an answer to four questions the board and the finance team will ask: is it used consistently, is it safe in our repositories, what does it cost, and what did it change. Claude Code adoption consulting is the work that makes those answerable — sequenced across teams, written into the repository, and measured against a baseline taken before anything changed.
The business problem
Individual Claude Code adoption produces real gains and no institutional capability. Nothing is shared, nothing is reviewable, and the org cannot tell whether output quality is holding.
Curriculum
Every module lands in your repository, not in a sample project. What the team builds during the sessions is what they keep using afterwards.
How to decompose work an agent can actually finish, and how to stay in control of a long-running session.
Engineers who direct the work rather than accept whatever comes back.
The extension points that turn individual habits into shared, reviewable engineering practice.
Move from individual Claude Code usage to a standardized AI-native engineering workflow.
Guardrails and testing
The module engineering teams ask for last and need first. Agentic development changes what a mistake costs: a wrong suggestion is an inconvenience, a wrong autonomous commit against production config is an incident. This is where we set that line with your team.
Process
A working bootcamp. By the end of it there are commits, not slides.
Codebase review
Stack, CI, review culture, current usage.
Baseline session
How the team works today, made explicit.
Build the standard
Skills, subagents, MCP and hooks, written together.
Committed to the repo
Conventions and tooling land in your codebase.
Follow-up review
What held, what drifted, what to tighten.
Expected outcomes
Before and after
This track is bought to change how the team works, not how individuals feel. Stated per role, then for token spend, data handling and measurement — the three that decide whether the standard survives contact with a deadline.
Software engineer
Personal prompts kept locally, re-invented per task, shared with nobody.
Shared skills and subagents committed to the repo, invoked the same way by everyone.
Tech lead
Reviews agent-assisted PRs against an unwritten standard that shifts by reviewer.
Reviews against an agreed bar, with hooks catching the mechanical part before it reaches them.
Engineering manager
Cannot tell whether output speed came at the cost of review quality.
Has an explicit, written position on testing and review for agent-assisted work.
Platform engineer
Asked to make agentic tooling safe with no defined surface to actually secure.
MCP connections and hooks defined, versioned and owned like the rest of the platform.
New joiner
Inherits nothing, and learns the team’s AI habits by osmosis over months.
Clones the repo and gets the team’s workflow along with the code.
Token economics
Sessions run unbounded, whole files are re-sent for one-line questions, and context is rebuilt from scratch after every interruption.
Context discipline is part of the standard: what belongs in project conventions, what belongs in a skill, and what should never be re-sent at all.
Data handling
No agreed position on what source, secrets, customer data or logs may enter a session — it varies by engineer and by deadline.
Access scope and redaction rules written down, with hooks enforcing the mechanical parts so compliance does not depend on memory.
Productivity
Speed is judged by feel. The cost that moved into review and rework is invisible, so the team argues about whether it is faster at all.
Measured across the whole cycle — including review and rework — against a baseline taken before the bootcamp, not a vendor benchmark.
Before you ask
Usually not prompting — usually everything around it. Skills, subagents, MCP and hooks are where individual fluency turns into a team standard, and in most organizations those are either unused or used by one enthusiast. The gap is standardization, not skill.
That is the intent, and the training is much weaker without it. Access scope, branch policy and what may leave your network are agreed with your security team before we start. If a production repo is not possible, a representative internal one works.
It is one of the things we make explicit rather than assume away. Agent-assisted changes shift where review effort goes, and a team without an agreed bar tends to discover that painfully. Setting that bar — and automating parts of it with hooks and CI — is part of the curriculum.
Different audiences and different intent. The corporate training track covers Claude fundamentals and role workflows for mixed business teams; this track assumes daily Claude Code use and is about engineering standards. Larger organizations usually run both.
Four things beyond the bootcamp itself. A rollout sequence across teams and repositories; an org-wide position on permission modes, tool and MCP allowlists and what code may reach the model; a plan for review capacity so rising output does not erode quality; and a measurement baseline taken before anything changes. The standard is committed to your repository as skills, subagents and hooks, so it outlives the engagement.
Not by seat count or message volume, which say who opened the tool rather than what changed. More useful: how many shared skills and subagents exist and how often they run, whether hooks enforce the agreed standard, review queue depth and rework on agent-assisted changes, token spend per team against budget, and time to first useful commit for new joiners. The last one is the most honest test of whether a team standard exists.
Yes — that is the workflow implementation engagement. Teams frequently surface two or three internal workflows worth building properly while standardizing, and those become the first candidates.
All four, and the fourth is the one teams ask for last and need first. Agents covers the agentic loop, skills and subagents — including what a spawned agent inherits and what it must not. MCP covers integrating your own systems as tools, with allowlists scoped per repository rather than per developer. Testing covers writing the suite before pointing an agent at it, and what a human must actually read when a 600-line diff was not typed by a person. Guardrails covers permission modes, hooks as mechanically enforced policy, protected paths for secrets, migrations and CI config, and treating issue text, PR comments and tool output as data rather than as instructions.
By deciding in advance, per repository, rather than trusting judgement in the moment. Permission modes define which tool calls run unprompted, which always stop and ask, and which are denied outright. Protected paths put secrets, migrations, infrastructure and CI config in human-only territory. Hooks enforce the standard mechanically instead of relying on reviewer memory. The model version is pinned per repository and the suite re-run before an upgrade, not after. And every agent run is traceable to the commit it produced and the instruction it was given.
Start here
Tell us how your engineers use Claude Code today. We come back with where the standard is missing and what a bootcamp would target first.