AHAndrew Houser.
Get in touch

Case study

Building an AI toolkit for a front-end team

CX team, Milliman IntelliScript, 2025 to present

Why build our own

General-purpose AI coding tools don't know our standards: Sable, our ADRs, our accessibility expectations. I wanted tools that review and build code the way our team would, so they catch the things we actually care about.

What's in it today

  • Spec-driven development workflow (5 agents). Takes a feature from requirements to design to tasks to implementation, with a specialized agent for each stage.
  • Pull request review workflow (8 agents). Each agent looks at one concern, including a dedicated accessibility reviewer, so reviews are specific instead of generic.
  • QA skill. Runs build, lint, and tests and reports problems before a human reviewer looks at the change.

The workflows started on my team and have been shared with the wider engineering org.

Agent roles in the AI toolkitThree agent workflows, the spec-driven development workflow, the pull request review workflow, and the QA skill, all feed into a human review step.Spec workflow(5 agents)PR review workflow(8 agents)QA skill(build, lint, tests)Human review
Each workflow does its own pass, then a human owns the final review.

Guardrails

Every change still has a human owner. The agents make review faster and more consistent. They don't approve anything on their own.

What's next

  • Checking that risky changes are behind feature flags
  • Finding and drafting missing unit tests
  • Suggesting Datadog RUM checks to watch after a deploy
  • Estimating a pull request's blast radius
  • Lighthouse-style performance checks that flag regressions before production