Less waiting. More work moving forward.

Delivery is the whole path to accepted work: preparation, implementation, checks and the handoff to a reviewer. airis shows where that path waits, prepares a shorter sequence and compares completion under the same acceptance conditions.

Delivery · Implement dependency caching Planning scenario

One task. Two plans. The same acceptance conditions.

Current plan4h 05m to a decision
Discover context 40m
Implement 1h 10m
Validate full suite 50m
Wait for review 1h 25m

Faster CI/CD · Owner Frank · Reviewer William · Durations are planned, not measured

Proposed plan2h 20m · same scale
Reuse verified context 10m
Implement 1h 05m
Independent checks 35m
Complete review packet 30m
Review, packet complete 35m

Same task, revision and acceptance conditions as the current plan · Not measured time saved, not model speed

01 / 04 The story

Delivery is measured to accepted work, not to the first reply.

  • 01 The clock runs from the start of a task to a review decision, including discovery, validation and every handoff in between.
  • 02 A proposed sequence keeps the task, the revision, the environment and the acceptance conditions constant. Only the order and the reuse change.
  • 03 Planned durations stay labeled as a planning scenario until a paired comparison records what actually happened.

02 / 04 Find, prepare, compare

Three steps from a slow handoff to a shorter path.

The example follows one task from the Faster CI/CD workstream, Implement dependency caching, owned by Frank and reviewed by William. Every duration on this page is a planning scenario.

01 Find the delay

Make the waiting visible.

agentacct lays the recorded activity of a task against its elapsed window. Working time, repeated work and waiting separate cleanly, so a team lead can see which minutes moved the task and which were spent rebuilding what was already known or waiting on a handoff.

  • Elapsed time from task start to review decision
  • Repeated discovery flagged against earlier runs of the workstream
  • Handoffs that waited because the reviewer lacked evidence
Goals & work
Delivery · Where the time went Planning scenario
Elapsed to decision 4h 05m Task start to review decision
Working time 2h 00m Implement 1h 10m · Validate 50m
Two delays 2h 05m 51% of elapsed time
Repeated discovery · 40m The repository map was verified on an earlier run of this workstream. This run rebuilt it before writing any code.
Waiting for review · 1h 25m The candidate reached William without check results attached. The review waited for evidence, not for a decision.

Implement dependency caching · Faster CI/CD · Durations are planned, not measured

02 Prepare a better sequence

Reuse what is verified. Overlap what is independent.

The proposed plan starts from the verified repository context instead of rediscovering it, runs the checks that do not depend on the implementation beside it, and assembles the review packet before the handoff. Dependent steps keep their order. The acceptance conditions do not change.

  • Verified context reused from a prepared skill
  • Independent checks scoped to the candidate, final suite required
  • Review packet assembled before the reviewer is asked
Team playbooks
Delivery · Proposed arrangement Planning scenario
Step Window Planned
Reuse verified context 0:00⁠–⁠0:10 10m
Implement 0:10⁠–⁠1:15 1h 05m
Independent checks in parallel 0:10⁠–⁠0:45 35m
Complete review packet 1:15⁠–⁠1:45 30m
Review, packet complete 1:45⁠–⁠2:20 35m
Context comes from a prepared skillRepository context · Draft v1 · Owner Frank · Not applied
Prepared
Checks scoped by a compared workflowFocused validation · v2 · Owner Alex
Compared

Critical path 2h 20m · Dependent steps keep their order · Applying the plan is a separate, reviewed decision

03 Compare completion

Count the work as done when it is accepted.

A shorter plan only matters if the work still meets the goal. The reviewer receives the candidate, the recorded checks and the open questions in one packet, and the comparison measures time to an accepted result, not time to an agent reporting Complete. Unfinished tasks stay in the comparison.

  • Same acceptance conditions in both plans
  • Agent report kept separate from recorded evidence
  • Comparison recorded per task, unfinished tasks retained
Execution quality
Review packet · Implement dependency caching Sample

What William receives

From Frank · Faster CI/CD
Ready
Candidate and revisionThe branch, revision and diff the checks ran against
Attached
CI run · 7m 42s medianTarget under 8 minutes · Scoped to the candidate
Recorded
248 / 248 suites retainedExit 0 · Final suite required
Recorded
Peer review and rolloutWilliam reviews next · No CI evidence yet
Pending
Open questionsListed for the reviewer · Not resolved
Listed

Preparing a packet records no approval and books no review · Sample data

03 / 04 Side by side

Same task. Same conditions. A shorter path to a decision.

Planned durations for one task on one scale. The scenario shows the coordination the proposed sequence relies on. It is not measured time saved, and it says nothing about model speed.

Implement dependency caching

Current plan against the proposed plan

Planning scenario
To a review decision
4h 05m2h 20m
Context before coding
40m10m
Review after handoff
1h 25m35m

Held constant in both plans: the task, the revision, the environment and the acceptance conditions (CI run under 8 minutes scoped to the candidate, 248 suites retained with exit 0, peer review by William). When the proposed sequence runs, the comparison is recorded per task with unfinished tasks retained.

With your own workstreams in mind

Less waiting for your teams,
with airis.

A guided look at where one task waited, the shorter sequence and how completion is compared, then a conversation about your review process.