Your product works. Now take it to the next level.

Engineers make product decisions by default when there's no designer in the room. Architecture choices, information hierarchy, what gets built first — these end up decided by whoever's writing the code. That works until it doesn't.

What we bring is the layer your engineers can't cover: the business logic translated into UX, the visual system that makes the product feel intentional, and the architecture thinking that keeps design and development aligned. Your team builds faster when those decisions are made before they open their IDE.

Yes. Depending on what you need, we can take a project from concept to working software. We do creative direction and design systems in Figma, and increasingly prototype and build in code using tools like Claude Code — which means you get something real to react to before committing to a full development budget.

If the build requires a larger engineering team, we can help you scope it, spec it, and find the right people. You won't be handed off to someone who doesn't understand the design intent.

That's generally how it works best. We embed rather than operate from a distance — in your Slack, in your sprints, in the conversation early enough to actually influence decisions.

If your CTO has strong opinions, we'll work with them. We'll defer on technical calls unless something is going to create a real problem downstream, and we'll say so clearly when it is. The goal is to make your team better, not to be the loudest voice in the room.

This is one of the most common things we hear. It usually happens when design and engineering are working in parallel instead of in conversation — the designer doesn't know what's hard to build, and the developers don't know what the design is actually trying to do.

We close that gap by thinking in systems from the start. The design decisions we make are grounded in how the data works, what the stack can support, and what your team can actually ship. And because we prototype in code, your engineers see something buildable before anything is finalized.

Honestly, we prefer it. Strong opinions mean people care, and that's a better starting point than apathy.

We embed and defer on technical calls — your engineers know their stack better than we do, and we respect that. Where we push back is when a technical decision is going to create a UX or business problem: wrong architecture for your acquisition strategy, a pattern that won't scale, a shortcut that will cost twice as much to undo later. We'll flag it once, clearly, and then follow your lead.

Completely fine. We can figure out the scope together — that's often the most useful first conversation. Sometimes it becomes clear pretty quickly what the right starting point is. Other times, the right move is to do a focused discovery session before committing to anything larger.

And if the timing isn't right yet, no rush. Circle back when you're ready. We'd rather you come in at the right moment than rush into something before it's going to be useful.

You can, and for some things you should. If you're still figuring out whether the idea has legs, get something in front of users fast.

Where it breaks down is when the product needs to hold together — when the data model needs to support real business logic, when the UX needs to feel intentional rather than assembled, when the design has to earn trust from people who are paying for it. That's when having a thought partner with architecture and design judgment saves more time than it costs.

Speed and seniority, mostly. Agencies have overhead: account managers, junior designers doing the actual work, handoff processes that add weeks. You're working directly with a senior practitioner from day one.

The bigger difference is where we start. Most agencies open Figma first. We start with your business model, your data, and your acquisition strategy — and design from there. The screens come later, and they're better for it.

Both. Creative direction and design systems live in Figma. But we also prototype and build in code — we use Claude Code to iterate quickly on real, working interfaces, which means your team reacts to something functional instead of a static mock.

For projects that need full development, we can take it to production or work alongside your engineering team with specs tight enough that nothing gets lost in translation.

We start by defining scope together — what needs to get done, in what order, and what success looks like at each milestone. Then we get into it.

We embed in your workflow. At least one dedicated call per week, async in between, and nothing moves forward without your sign-off. Expect to spend 2 to 3 hours a week on feedback and direction. We move quickly and we don't disappear between check-ins.

Our rate is comparable to a senior staff designer — without the full-time salary, benefits, or overhead. We work on both project and retainer bases depending on what makes sense for the engagement.

We don't publish rates because scope varies a lot. Start with a conversation. We'll be straight with you about whether we're the right fit and what a realistic engagement looks like.

Both, and the combination is the point. Maria has been building websites since she was 10, taught herself UX design to help launch the CHANI app, and developed B2B and dashboard design instincts at Hopper. The technical depth came from years in developer relations at Microsoft and Shopify — you can't earn the trust of engineering teams without actually understanding how things are built.

As Founding Director of Product at CHANI, she took on full technical PM responsibilities: architecture, data modeling, product strategy. Not because it was in the job description, but because the combination of skills she'd built made her the right person for it. That's still true.