AI Coding Net Velocity & Task Partitioning Workbench

Source-Grounded Presets:

Team Size (Engineers): 8

Seniority Mix (% Seniors): 50%

Review Rigor Model:

Downstream Security Drag:

Gross Code-Gen Gain

+18.4%

Theoretical generation speedup

Review Tax Overhead

26.8h

Prompting & evaluation cost/sprint

Incident & Security Drag

14.2h

23.5% surge & vuln triage

True Net Velocity Gain

+12.8%

Real shipped throughput

Perception Gap (Illusion)

38.5h

Feeling faster vs reality

Draw the Line: Work Partitioning Click task card to repartition

Click any task below to toggle between Human-First stability and AI-Assisted drafting. Watch net velocity adjust instantly.

🛡️ Human-First Zone 4 tasks

⚡ AI-Assisted Zone 4 tasks

Sprint Velocity Waterfall (Hours) Sprint Impact

Modeled across a 2-week sprint based on empirical METR 19% slowdown on hard tasks & Veracode incident surge.

Policy Verdict: Calibrated Task Boundary

Calibrated Task Boundary Mode: Human-first core logic prevents 2.74x vulnerability exposure while tests/boilerplate deliver 24.5% task-level time savings.

CTO Engineering Policy & Net Velocity Audit Brief

Coding velocity: assigned savings, task boundaries and limitations

Your browser does not support video.

Read the explanation

The saved source gives each engineer eighty hours per sprint and divides the total equally among eight task categories. At eight engineers each task receives eighty hours. The default assigns tests, scaffolding, documentation and data migrations to AI assistance. The first three are pattern tasks; migration is a hard high risk task. At a fifty-fifty senior mix and skeptical review, the formulas give sixty-six point four hours of gross saving, twenty-two point eight hours of review and eight hours of incident drag. Subtraction leaves thirty-five point six hours, or five point six percent after rounding. The bar lengths use six pixels per hour. These are assigned coefficients, not measured team outcomes. The static initial KPI strings differ from the actual calculation. The formulas distinguish pattern and hard tasks. A pattern task has point twenty-eight junior saving and point sixteen senior saving, plus a five percent review charge times rigor and optional one point five percent incident charge. A hard task uses point twenty-two and point twelve saving, point nineteen senior review and point zero eight junior review, plus risk-weighted incident drag. At default values migration contributes thirteen point six minus ten point eight minus four point four hours, a net loss of one point six. Moving only migration to human-first removes that contribution, raising the assigned net to thirty-seven point two hours, rounded to five point eight percent. Human-first tasks contribute no saving or drag in these equations; this is a modeled baseline, not a guarantee of defect-free human work. Team size scales every task-hour term equally, so doubling the team doubles assigned hours while leaving the net percentage unchanged before rounding. The vulnerability reduction number is separate: critical AI tasks count one point five and high risk AI tasks one, compared with a maximum weighted count of six. Default migration is the only high risk assisted task, giving eighty-three point three percent. Removing it gives one hundred percent in this weighting scheme, not proof of zero real vulnerabilities. Verdict prose labels every intermediate partition calibrated, even when critical tasks remain assisted. The page stores configuration locally and prepares a Markdown brief. Its research attribution and two-times-throughput claim are static text, not independently verified evidence or a consequence established by these equations. Offline Chart is unavailable and can interrupt brief generation after KPI updates.