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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.