They are already building
Nobody approved it — it just happened, because the tools got good. The risk is already there whether or not anyone is tracking it, and the people carrying it don't know which questions to ask.
Your business team is already building with agents
They are wiring tools to your real data without knowing which questions to ask. In one day I teach them the questions that matter — using the project they are actually building.
It isn't that they can't code
People in product, operations, marketing and finance are building their own tools now. They describe what they want, an agent builds it, and it works. That part is real.
The problem isn't code quality — the agent writes decent code. It's that nobody ever told them which categories of risk exist: that having a login is not the same as being protected, that a key stays in the project's history after you delete it from the code, that by default nothing caps the bill.
You cannot ask about a space you don't know is there. An agent answers any question well — what it won't do is tell you which question you should have asked.
Your engineers can't review everything the rest of the company builds. Usually they're just the ones who inherit it.
Two situations, one answer
You would rather they didn't. Yet.
Then the choice isn't between letting them build and stopping them. Teams pick these tools up with or without permission. The real choice is whether it happens deliberately, with the guardrails explained up front, or quietly. Teaching first costs a fraction of correcting later.
Either way what the team needs is the same — and it isn't a programming course. It's knowing which questions to ask, so you can hand them the tools without handing them the risk.
A system, not a course
The whole thing is published. Read it and judge it before you talk to me.
The loop
Specify, build, check, correct. Two of those four phases hand over to the agent completely — and they are exactly the two people mean when they say "programming". What is left is saying what you want and knowing whether you got it.
The map
Twelve categories where things go wrong, plus one of taste. For each one, three levels: knowing it exists, being able to ask about it, and having a view of your own. Nobody sits on the same level across the board — the profile comes out jagged, and that is exactly what the diagnosis measures.
How this works
Prices are a starting point, not a tariff. Sessions run online, which is usually better anyway.
Individual session
from €90
We go through your own project. You leave knowing where your gaps are and which one to close first.
For anyone building alone — changing careers, starting something, or just checking whether this applies to them.
Team workshop
from €600
A working session with the people who are already building. You leave with the map of your own project: which boxes are empty, who covers each one, and what to cover first.
A diagnosis, not a course. The first workshop is half price in exchange for a testimonial.
Ongoing
On request
Regular sessions while the team builds for real, reviewing their actual work rather than examples.
Usually decided after a workshop, once you know whether it is worth it.
In Spain, in-company training is FUNDAE-eligible, which can cover most or all of the cost. Ask me and we will look at it.
What this is not
- Not learning to program. Bootcamps exist and they are better at that.
- Not building the product for you. That is consulting, and it is another door on the same site.
- Not an official certification.
- Not training in one specific tool. That is in its documentation, for free.
Find out where the gaps are
A short call is enough to tell whether this helps you or not. If it does not, I will say so.
Book a call