How Lynovix delivers

Most software is shipped from conversation. Requirements in Slack, architecture in somebody's head, scope that drifts until the invoice lands. We built Lynovix to refuse that pattern. Every project we take runs on the same rails, produces the same artifacts, and passes the same gate before billable build rates start.

The problem we solve

You have seen it. Pick any of these:

• The estimate that doubles once engineers "really look at it".
• The architecture nobody can draw on a whiteboard the same way twice.
• The decision that was "agreed on the Tuesday call" and now nobody can find.
• The sprint that ships features you did not prioritise, because scope moved in-flight.

The root cause is always the same: planning rigour is discarded the moment delivery starts. Most vendors treat planning as a one-time kickoff, then improvise. We treat planning as a set of frozen artifacts that every downstream decision has to cite.

Our method: BMAD on rails

We run every engagement on BMAD — the Breakthrough Method for Agile Development. Think of it as the disciplined upgrade to "agile with a Jira board". Four phases, each producing a named artifact, each artifact frozen before the next phase starts.

1. 1

   Analysis → product-brief.md — problem, users, constraints, success criteria, fit score.

2. 2

   Planning → PRD.md + UX spec — signed scope baseline before a single build hour is quoted.

3. 3

   Solutioning → architecture.md + ADRs — the system on disk, plus a readiness gate run by our Architect.

4. 4

   Implementation → Agent-led build — story-level review, weekly retro, working software every sprint.

Every artifact is a real file in a real repository. You get it. You can read it without us. If we leave, your team can keep running on it.

The readiness gate — the commercial moment that matters

At the end of Solutioning, our Architect runs a single check against the planned architecture and issues one of three verdicts:

• PASS. Build rates start. Implementation begins.

• CONCERNS. Build rates start only with your written acceptance of the listed risks.

• FAIL. We return to planning at planning rates. You do not pay build rates against unfinished work.

That gate is the reason our clients do not see the "estimate doubled after kickoff" pattern. Build pricing is locked to a frozen architecture, signed by an independent architect. It is the single commercial promise behind the method.

What you can verify on day one

Most methodology pages end here — a rendered diagram and a promise. Ours does not, because the point of the method is that it leaves evidence. On your engagement you can inspect:

product-brief.md

13 sections, including a scored fit analysis and the solution directions we rejected and why.

PRD.md

frozen scope baseline, functional and non-functional requirements, explicit out-of-scope list.

architecture.md

system design, data flow, deployment model, constraints. Written in prose, not slideware.

ADRs

one file per architectural decision, with the alternatives we considered and the tradeoff we accepted.

Readiness gate record

PASS / CONCERNS / FAIL verdict, with conditions if any.

Story-to-architecture map

every implementation story cites the architecture section it builds against.

If a client ever asks "why this choice?", the answer is on disk, dated, and signed.

How this feels different as a buyer

Who this is for

Lynovix runs BMAD end-to-end on two shapes of engagement:

• Dedicated team. We ring-fence a named team — engineers, architect on call, design as needed — and run Analysis → Implementation under our artifact ownership. One monthly number, one named counterpart. Best when the outcome matters more than the hours.

• Staff augmentation. One or more engineers plug into your team and your cadence. We bring BMAD habits even when you own the artifacts. Best when you already have a delivery method that works and need specific capability — AI/LLM integration, cloud engineering, data infrastructure.

Independent consultants, IT freelancers and small agencies who keep the client relationship can embed us under either shape — contact us for the commercial detail.

Frequently asked

"This looks heavy for a small project."

Quick-Flow engagements collapse Analysis and Planning into a single signed brief and skip the full readiness gate. The rails scale down; the frozen-artifact discipline does not.

"Can we use our own architecture?"

Yes, under staff augmentation. We adopt your conventions via your project-context.md. Under the dedicated team shape, we write and own architecture.md because that is what the gate runs against.

"Can we see a sample product-brief or architecture before signing?"

Yes. On the discovery call we walk through a redacted example from a real engagement.