In early 2024, I had a conversation with a potential client that changed how I think about CODERCOPS. They were evaluating three agencies for a mental health platform. All three could build the web app. All three could set up the database, deploy the frontend, handle authentication. But when they described their core feature -- matching users to the right listener based on emotional state, conversation history, and real-time availability -- two of the agencies said the same thing: "We can build the app, and then you can bring in an AI consultant for the matching algorithm."
We said: "The matching algorithm is the app. Everything else is infrastructure around it."
We got the project. That project became The Venting Spot. And that conversation crystallized something I had been feeling for months: the distinction between an agency that uses AI and an agency that is built around AI is not a marketing difference. It is an architectural one, an organizational one, and ultimately a competitive one.
The Spectrum of "Using AI"
Let me be precise about what I mean, because "AI-first" has become as meaningless as "digital transformation" was five years ago. There is a spectrum, and most agencies sit at one end of it while claiming to be at the other.
The AI Adoption Spectrum for Agencies (2026)
Level 0: No AI
"We write all code manually"
[Almost nobody is here anymore]
Level 1: AI-Assisted
"Our developers use Copilot/Cursor/Claude Code"
[~70% of agencies in 2026]
Level 2: AI-Enhanced
"We offer chatbot integration as an add-on service"
[~20% of agencies]
Level 3: AI-Integrated
"AI features are part of our standard project scope"
[~8% of agencies]
Level 4: AI-First <-- CODERCOPS is here
"Every project starts with: where does AI add value?"
"AI capabilities inform architecture from day one"
"Every team member understands ML fundamentals"
[~2% of agencies]The difference between Level 2 and Level 4 is not incremental. It is structural. At Level 2, AI is a feature you bolt on after the core application is designed. At Level 4, AI capabilities inform the database schema, the API design, the UX flow, the deployment architecture, and the team composition from the first meeting.
What "AI-First" Actually Means in Practice
Let me walk through the concrete differences across every dimension of how we operate.
1. How We Scope Projects
A typical agency's discovery process:
- What features do you need?
- What is your budget?
- What is your timeline?
- Here is our estimate.
Our discovery process:
- What problem are you solving?
- Where in this problem does pattern recognition, prediction, generation, or classification add value?
- What data do you have, and what data can we generate?
- Which AI capabilities are core vs. nice-to-have?
- What happens when the AI is wrong? (Fallback design)
- Here is our estimate, with AI inference costs modeled separately.
This is not just a different set of questions. It is a fundamentally different way of understanding what the product is.
When Colleatz came to us for a food delivery platform, a standard agency would have built a menu system, cart, checkout, and delivery tracking. We did all of that. But we also asked: what happens when a user opens the app and does not know what they want? That question led to a recommendation engine based on order history, time of day, and trending items. It was not a separate "AI feature" added later -- it was baked into the data model from day one, which meant we designed the order schema to capture the signals we would need for recommendations.
2. How We Hire and Train
This is where the rubber meets the road. At CODERCOPS, every developer -- not just the "AI team" -- is expected to understand:
- How transformer models work at a conceptual level
- When to use the OpenAI API vs. a fine-tuned model vs. a rule-based system
- How to design schemas that support ML features
- How to handle AI latency in UX
- How to write prompts that are reliable in production (not just demos)
- Basic concepts of embeddings, vector search, and retrieval-augmented generation
This is a hard requirement. Not optional. Not "encouraged."
I know this limits our hiring pool. I know we pass on talented developers who are great at traditional web development but have no interest in ML. That is a deliberate tradeoff. We would rather have a smaller team where everyone understands the full stack -- including the AI stack -- than a larger team where AI knowledge is siloed in two or three specialists.
| Traditional Agency Hiring | CODERCOPS Hiring |
|---|---|
| Frontend + Backend skills | Frontend + Backend + AI literacy |
| "Nice to have: ML experience" | "Required: Can explain when embeddings beat keyword search" |
| AI specialists hired separately | Every dev understands AI trade-offs |
| Training: new frameworks, tools | Training: new models, prompt engineering, inference optimization |
| Team of 20, 2 know AI | Team of 8, all 8 know AI |
3. How We Architect Systems
In a traditional agency, the architecture discussion starts with: "What framework? What database? What hosting?" In our architecture discussions, there is always an additional layer:
Traditional Architecture Decision Flow:
Requirements -> Tech Stack -> Database Schema -> API Design -> Deploy
CODERCOPS Architecture Decision Flow:
Requirements -> AI Capability Mapping -> Data Architecture
| |
v v
AI Service Selection -----> Tech Stack -> API Design
| | |
v v v
Inference Cost Model Database Schema Deploy + Monitor
| | |
+--------> Fallback Design <--------------+Take QueryLytic as an example. This is a product that lets users query any database using plain English. The entire product is an AI feature. But the architecture decisions that make it work are not just about the NLP model:
- Schema understanding: The system automatically learns database structure for accurate query translation. This meant we needed a metadata layer that could introspect any connected database and build a representation the AI could use as context.
- Query validation: Generated SQL must be safe and efficient. We built a validation layer that catches potentially destructive queries before execution -- this is not an AI feature, it is a safety feature informed by the fact that AI generates the queries.
- Multi-database support: PostgreSQL, MySQL, MongoDB. Each has different syntax. The prompt engineering varies per database type. The architecture had to be modular enough to swap query generation strategies per connector.
None of these architectural decisions make sense unless you start from "this is an AI product" rather than "this is a web app with an AI feature."
4. How We Handle the AI-Specific UX Challenges
Here is something most agencies learn the hard way: AI features have UX requirements that traditional features do not.
The loading state problem. When a user clicks a button and a database query returns in 200ms, you show a spinner for a fraction of a second. When a user asks an AI to generate content, analyze text, or make a match, inference can take 2-8 seconds. You cannot just show a spinner for 8 seconds. Users will leave.
At CODERCOPS, we have developed patterns for this:
- Progressive disclosure: Show partial results as they stream in
- Skeleton + context: Show what the result will look like plus a message about what the AI is doing ("Analyzing your emotional state to find the best listener match...")
- Optimistic UI with correction: Show an immediate best-guess result, then refine it when the AI response arrives
- Precomputation: For predictable queries, run inference ahead of time and cache results
We learned these patterns across projects. On The Venting Spot, the listener matching needs to feel instant even though the AI is evaluating multiple factors. On Lore Web3, the AI content generation tools (title generator, description writer, license advisor) each take different amounts of time and needed different UX approaches. The title generator streams 4 suggestions progressively. The description writer shows a skeleton with word count updating in real time.
These are not things you figure out on a single project. They are institutional knowledge that compounds across an AI-first portfolio.
Real Examples: AI-First Decisions Across Our Projects
Let me get specific about how being AI-first changed the actual output across several projects.
The Venting Spot: AI-Driven Emotional Matching
What a normal agency would have built: A marketplace where users browse listener profiles and pick one manually. Filter by specialty, read reviews, schedule a session.
What we built: A mood-based matching system where users select their emotional state (stressed, lonely, heartbroken, overworked) and the platform uses OpenAI models to match them with the most appropriate listener based on the user's stated emotions, the listener's training areas, historical match success rates, and real-time availability.
The difference is not cosmetic. The data model is different (we track emotional states as structured data, not free text). The listener onboarding is different (we need structured specialty data from listeners in a format the AI can use). The success metrics are different (match satisfaction scores feed back into the algorithm).
Lore Web3: AI Content Tools for Creators
What a normal agency would have built: A form where creators type a title, write a description, and select a license. Manual everything.
What we built: AI-powered tools integrated directly into the creation flow:
- A title generator that produces 4 AI suggestions in 30 seconds
- A rich description writer that automatically generates 150+ word descriptions
- A license advisor that recommends optimal royalty rates based on the content type and market data
The AI is not a separate feature. It is the creation flow. Remove it and the product's value proposition collapses.
QueryLytic: NLP as the Core Product
QueryLytic is the purest example of AI-first thinking. The entire product is natural language processing. There is no version of this product that works without AI. The architecture, the UX, the data model, the error handling -- everything is built around the assumption that a language model sits between the user and the database.
The query validation layer alone took weeks to get right. Not because the AI was bad at generating SQL (it is surprisingly good), but because production SQL needs to be safe, performant, and explainable. We had to build guardrails that prevent the AI from running destructive queries, that optimize generated queries for performance, and that show users the actual SQL so they can verify what was executed.
AI Interview: Conversational AI That Feels Human
When we built AI Interview, the biggest challenge was not the technology. It was making AI-powered mock interviews feel like real interviews. That meant:
- Natural conversation flow, not robotic Q&A
- Follow-up questions based on previous answers
- Realistic timing (a real interviewer pauses, thinks, reacts)
- Feedback that is specific and actionable, not generic
These are UX decisions that only make sense when your team understands both web development and AI behavior. A traditional web team would have built a nice UI and plugged in an API call. We built a conversation engine that manages state, context, and flow in a way that creates a believable interview experience.
The Competitive Advantage
I will be honest: being AI-first is harder than being AI-enhanced. The hiring pool is smaller. The architecture decisions are more complex. The testing is more unpredictable (you cannot write deterministic tests for probabilistic outputs). The cost modeling is trickier because you are paying per API call in addition to hosting.
But the competitive advantage is real and compounding:
| Dimension | AI-Enhanced Agency | AI-First Agency (CODERCOPS) |
|---|---|---|
| Time to integrate AI | Weeks (bring in specialist) | Days (every dev can do it) |
| Architecture quality | AI bolted on, integration friction | AI native, clean architecture |
| UX for AI features | Generic spinners, slow | Patterns tested across 11+ projects |
| Cost estimation | AI costs often surprise the client | AI inference costs modeled upfront |
| Fallback design | Often missing | Standard part of every AI feature |
| Client education | "You need a separate AI vendor" | "This is included" |
The compounding part is important. Every project we ship makes us better at the next one. The streaming UI patterns from Lore informed The Venting Spot. The prompt engineering lessons from QueryLytic improved AI Interview. The fallback strategies we developed for one project became standard practices across all of them.
The Honest Tradeoffs
I do not want to paint this as all upside. There are real costs to being AI-first.
We turn down projects. If a client needs a straightforward brochure site or a CRUD application with no AI component, we are probably not the best fit. We can do it, but they would be paying for AI expertise they do not need. We refer those projects to agencies that specialize in traditional web development.
Our team is smaller than it could be. The requirement that every developer understands AI fundamentals means we reject candidates who are excellent web developers but have no interest in ML. In a tight hiring market, this hurts.
Estimation is harder. AI features have less predictable timelines than traditional features. A CRUD endpoint takes a predictable amount of time. Getting a prompt to reliably generate accurate, safe output in production can take anywhere from a day to two weeks, depending on the complexity and the failure modes.
Costs are less predictable. When you are paying per API call, a feature that costs $50/month in testing might cost $500/month when real users hit it. We have learned to model this, but it is still an additional variable that traditional agencies do not deal with.
Testing is genuinely harder. You cannot write a unit test that says "assert the AI response is correct." AI outputs are probabilistic. We have developed evaluation frameworks -- checking for structural correctness, content boundaries, latency thresholds -- but it is more complex than traditional testing.
What Clients Actually Get Differently
When a client works with CODERCOPS instead of an agency that will "add AI later," here is what is concretely different:
AI capability assessment in the first meeting. Before we talk tech stack, we map where AI adds value. Sometimes the answer is "nowhere right now" -- and we tell clients that honestly.
Unified architecture. No integration friction between the "web part" and the "AI part." One team, one codebase, one deployment pipeline.
AI inference costs in the proposal. Not as a surprise later. We model expected API usage, include it in the estimate, and set up monitoring from day one.
Fallback design for every AI feature. What happens when the model is slow? When it gives a bad response? When the API is down? We design for these cases because we have seen them all in production.
AI-aware UX. Loading states, streaming interfaces, confidence indicators, graceful degradation -- these are standard in our work, not afterthoughts.
Post-launch AI monitoring. We track model performance, response quality, latency, and costs. Not just uptime.
Why 2026 Is the Inflection Point
Two years ago, being AI-first was a bet. Today it is becoming table stakes. Here is what changed:
- Model costs dropped 90%+ since 2023. AI features that were cost-prohibitive are now feasible for startups.
- OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google all offer production-grade APIs with SLAs, rate limiting, and enterprise features.
- Users expect AI. Search is semantic now. Chatbots are default. Content generation is assumed. If your product does not use AI where users expect it, it feels dated.
- The talent gap is closing. More developers understand AI concepts. The barrier to being AI-first is lower.
But here is the thing: the agencies that started this journey two years ago -- the ones that built institutional knowledge across multiple AI projects, that developed patterns and practices, that trained every team member -- have a compounding advantage over agencies that are just starting now.
That is the real reason we chose to be AI-first. Not because it looked good on the website. Because the advantage compounds, and the earlier you start, the wider the gap becomes.
The Bottom Line
Every agency will claim to "use AI" in 2026. Many of them genuinely do -- their developers use AI coding assistants, they can integrate a chatbot if you ask for one, they might even have an AI specialist on staff.
But there is a difference between using AI and being built around AI. The difference shows up in the architecture. It shows up in the UX. It shows up in the cost model. It shows up in what happens when things go wrong.
At CODERCOPS, AI is not a feature we add. It is the lens through which we evaluate every project, every architecture decision, every hire. That was a deliberate strategic choice with real tradeoffs. But after shipping 11+ projects with this approach, I am more convinced than ever that it was the right one.
The question for agencies in 2026 is not whether to use AI. It is whether to reorganize around it. We made that choice early. And the compound returns are just starting.
Anurag Verma is the Founder and CEO of CODERCOPS, an AI-first tech studio based in India serving global clients. If you are building a product where AI is core to the value proposition, we should talk: codercops.com
Comments