Engineering that survives contact with production
Web, mobile, cloud, DevOps, AI/ML and interface design, built from Hyderabad and Union City. Nine services, three ways to engage, and one team that stays on the project from the scoping call through to the handover.
Software is now the part of your business people judge you by
Buyers form a view of an organisation from a page load and a checkout flow long before they speak to anyone in it. Things that used to be merely annoying now carry a price: a slow mobile experience, a release nobody trusts, a system only one person understands and that person is on leave.
The bar moved, the budget did not
Your software gets compared against companies with a hundred engineers, by users who neither know nor care how many you have.
Most systems fail slowly
Rarely a single outage. More often a codebase that gets more expensive to change every quarter, until a rewrite starts to look like the only option left.
Capacity is the constraint, not ambition
Roadmaps stall on hiring. The engineers you want take months to find, and longer again to make genuinely productive in your stack.
Three groups of work, one team
Nine services, grouped by what stage of the problem they answer. We are not structured as nine separate practices billing each other for handoffs: the same people who design an interface build it, deploy it, and pick up the phone when it needs changing.
Get the first working version out, then keep it shippable
New product work: a web application, a mobile app, or the interface layer over a system you already run. Design and engineering sit in the same team, so the person who drew the screen is still in the room when it gets built. What gets specified is what gets released.
- Next.js and React applications, server-rendered by default
- Node.js and Python APIs and integrations
- Progressive web apps and e-commerce builds
- Native iOS and Android development
- React Native and Flutter for a shared codebase
- App Store and Play Store release management
- User research and task flow mapping
- Wireframes, prototypes, and usability testing
- Design systems your team can extend without us
What people actually come to us with
Six situations behind most of our enquiries, written the way they turn up in the first email rather than the way a capability deck would phrase them. What we would do about each, and what changes if we do.
A release takes a week of manual steps and everyone is tense on deploy day.
CI/CD pipelines with automated tests as the release gate, infrastructure defined in code, and a rollback path that has actually been tested rather than documented.
Deploying stops being an event and becomes something you do on a Tuesday afternoon.
The site is slow on mobile data, and analytics show people leaving before it loads.
A page-weight budget agreed before design starts, server rendering for anything whose discovery matters, and images sized for the device asking for them.
Pages that resolve on a mid-range Android phone on mobile data.
The people who built the system have left, and nobody wants to touch the code.
A read-only assessment first: dependencies, test coverage, and how a change currently reaches production. Then incremental work behind a written plan, rather than the rewrite nobody has budget for.
A codebase your next hire can be productive in within their first fortnight.
Cloud spend climbs every month and nobody can say which service is responsible.
Tagged resources, cost broken down per service and environment, and right-sizing driven by what the bill says rather than by what the architecture diagram looks like.
An invoice you can explain line by line, and a clear list of what to fix next.
There is a mandate to add AI, but no agreement on what it should actually do.
We scope from the failure case. What happens when the model is confidently wrong decides how much human review the feature needs. Retrieval over your own documents comes first, before anyone pays to fine-tune a thing.
Either a narrow feature worth shipping, or a documented reason not to build it.
The roadmap is stalled on hiring, and new engineers take months to become useful.
Engineers embedded in your existing process, plus training delivered against your own codebase rather than a generic curriculum. Some of those engineers came through our internship programme.
Capacity that is productive in your stack, not merely certified in the technology.
Three ways to work with us
Nearly everything starts with the first of these, whether or not it goes further. Pick the shape that matches how well the problem is understood today, not the one you hope to be ready for in six weeks.
Talk to us about scopeScoping engagement
When you have a problem, not yet a spec
About an hour with the engineers who would do the work, followed by a written view of the approach, a cost range rather than a single number, and the risks named out loud. It costs nothing. A fair share of these end with us saying we are not the right firm, which is a result you can act on.
- A session with the engineers who would build it
- Written approach and an architecture sketch
- An estimate as a range, with what moves it either way
- Constraints and risks named up front
- No fee, and no obligation to proceed
Project delivery
When the build is defined and a date matters
A dedicated team of a designer, two to four engineers, and one technical point of contact, working two-week iterations against a scope agreed in writing. You get a build you can click through at the end of every one, so a slipping date is something you hear about in week four rather than month four.
- A named team and one point of contact who can answer technically
- Two-week iterations, each ending in a working build
- Fixed price against a written scope where the work allows it
- Tests and CI running from the first week, not retrofitted
- Handover documentation and a post-launch support window
Team extension and training
When your own team needs capacity or skills
Our engineers join your team and work to your process, your board, and your review standards. Nobody here tries to install the Prakmas way of working inside your company. Where the gap is skills rather than hands, we run Full Stack, Cloud, or DevOps training against your own codebase instead of a generic syllabus.
- Engineers embedded in your process and your tracker
- Rolling monthly commitment, not a multi-year contract
- Full Stack, Cloud, and DevOps training tracks
- Sessions run against your repository where that helps
- Access to graduates of our free internship programme
How we think about this work
Three pieces on the decisions that come up early in an engagement: how we put a number on a project, why a migration should rarely become a rewrite, and what we say to clients before they add an LLM.
All insightsHow we scope a project, and why we sometimes say no
A scoping call that ends in an honest no is worth more to both sides than an engagement that starts on a misunderstanding.
Most cloud migrations do not need a rewrite
The instinct to re-architect everything on the way to cloud is how a migration becomes a multi-year programme that stalls. Move it first. Then fix what the bill points at.
What we tell clients before they add an LLM to their product
Most requests we get for AI features describe a solution rather than a problem. The useful first conversation is about what happens when the model is confidently wrong.
What prospects ask before they commit
Pricing, timelines, ownership, and who actually writes the code. If your question is not here, ask it on the scoping call. We would rather answer it before an engagement starts than halfway through one.
Two ways, and which one you get depends on how well the work is understood. Where the scope is clear and a launch date matters, we quote a fixed price against a written scope, with a change process for anything added later so the number does not move quietly. Where the problem is still being defined, which covers most discovery, most AI work, and most legacy assessment, we bill time and materials against a monthly ceiling you set and we do not cross without asking first. You get a range before you get an invoice, and we tell you which decisions push the number toward each end of it.
A focused web application is usually a few months from kickoff to first release. Mobile across both platforms runs longer, and more of the extra time goes on store review and device testing than on writing code. We would rather give you a range after a scoping call than publish an average that fits nobody. What we will put in writing is a working build every two weeks, so a schedule problem shows up while there is still room to cut scope instead of moving the date.
Yes, and it is a large share of what we do. We start with a read-only assessment: dependencies, test coverage, and how a change currently reaches production. Our engineers then work in your tracker, to your branching rules and your review standards, rather than importing ours. A rewrite is not the price of getting us involved, and in most cases we will argue against one.
Every project ends in a real handover: written documentation, a walkthrough with whoever will maintain the system, and a support window in which we fix anything that surfaces in normal use at no extra cost. After that you can retain us monthly for maintenance or take it in-house. We build for the second option. There is no framework of ours sitting in your codebase, no licence to renew, and no deployment that needs someone here awake to run it.
Hyderabad, Telangana and Union City, California. Between the two you get a working day that touches both Indian and US business hours, with a dependable overlap in the morning Pacific and evening India window. That is where we put standups and anything needing a decision. We are a small firm and do not run a follow-the-sun rota. We would rather tell you plainly that someone is asleep than imply otherwise and answer you badly at 3am.
Small teams: typically a designer, two to four engineers, and one point of contact technical enough to answer a question without going away to check. You will know all of them by name. We are a 10 to 50 person firm and we staff to that honestly. If a project needs more people than we can put on it and still do it well, that is a reason for us to decline rather than a reason to stretch and hope it holds.
They feed each other. The Full Stack, Cloud, and DevOps tracks are taught by engineers who spend the rest of the week on client work, which is why the material follows what is actually running in production rather than what was current three years ago. The free internships are also where a good share of our hiring comes from, so the people we put on your project already know how we review code before they write any of yours.
Not unsupervised, and never without you knowing. Interns work on internal projects and on well-bounded pieces of client work under a named senior engineer, with every change reviewed before it merges. We tell you when that is the case, and you are not billed for anyone learning on your time.
You do, on payment, including the repository history and the infrastructure definitions. There is no licensing hook and no hosting lock-in. Anything we reuse across clients is open source under a permissive licence, so nothing in your build depends on your contract with us continuing.
Regularly. We say no when the work needs deep domain expertise we do not have, when a date cannot be met without shipping something we would not want our name on, and when what is being described would be better solved by configuring an existing product than by building anything new. That last one comes up more often than you would expect, and it is the cheapest answer we can give you.
Start with a conversation, not a proposal
An hour with the engineers who would do the work. You leave with an approach, a cost range, and the risks named, and that holds whether or not we end up working together. There is no fee and nothing to sign.