We build the hard parts

A boutique engineering & cyber security studio for AI, cloud, and data systems: the deep-tech work other teams quote, stall on, or walk away from.

AI · cloud · cyber · data / shipped, not demoed

↓ scroll

01/ What we do

We build AI systems on cloud & data foundations, secure what they touch, drop to systems metal when it matters, and audit what others built.

the deep-tech work other teams quote, stall on, or walk away from

  • agents, retrieval, evals, model routing: systems that earn production, not demos
  • AWS-native, failure-first infra and stores that fit the problem: provable, reproducible, torn down clean
  • threat models, least privilege, detection that fires: security engineered in, not reviewed at the end
  • microVMs, kernels, FFI: below the runtime when the problem demands it
  • we find where it breaks, where cost hides, where risk lives: prioritized fixes, not a vague report

Services /02

Overview

We design and build LLM systems that earn production: agents that finish work rather than demo it, retrieval and tool-use that return the right thing, and a cost model you can defend line by line. The parts the field is still arguing about — context management, token efficiency, model routing, evals — are the parts we take ownership of.

Where it gets hard

The model is rarely the difficult part. What is difficult is everything that has to stay true around it: a provider prompt cache that survives a proxy hop byte-for-byte, a tool surface an agent can actually drive without burning its context window on retries, an eval that fails for the reason you think it does, and a spend curve that doesn't quietly bend when traffic does. We treat those as engineering invariants with tests behind them, not as prompt tuning.

EngagementsLLM architecture & design reviewagent and tool-surface designretrieval, RAG and tool-useevals and regression harnessestoken efficiency and model routingLLM-safe data boundaries
Proof

Token Efficiency Engine — a Rust gateway that meters LLM spend without breaking the provider's prompt cache. Provider caches key on a byte-exact, order-sensitive request, so we metered, attributed and routed every call while keeping the upstream payload byte-stable under concurrency. Spend metered, cache intact, model routing built in rather than bolted on.

TechRustPythonTypeScriptAxumTokiotool-useprompt-cachingmodel routingevalshexagonal
Click to enlarge · 4 screens
Overview

Architecture for systems that have to keep running: AWS-native infrastructure designed failure-first, stores chosen for the access pattern rather than the résumé, and boundaries clean enough that the system stays changeable after we leave. When the problem genuinely demands it, we go below the runtime — microVMs, kernels, FFI — instead of routing around it.

Where it gets hard

Most cloud pain isn't capacity, it's coupling: a system that cannot be exercised without the live world, a datastore picked before anyone knew how it would be read, and an operational surface nobody can reason about at 3am. So we design the failure modes before the happy path, put hexagonal boundaries between the domain and everything holding a socket, and keep the core offline-first — replayable and re-runnable without standing production up first.

Engagementsarchitecture and design reviewAWS build-out, IaC and CDKdistributed systems designdata platform and store selectionlatency, throughput and cost workre-architecture (not lift-and-shift)
Proof

Agent-Native MicroVM Runtime — a macOS microVM runtime in Rust that replaces Docker Desktop, driven through Apple's Virtualization.framework with every unsafe FFI call quarantined. File sync at 0.3 ms, database branches in 32–35 ms with zero bytes on disk across six live copies, cold boot in 2–3 s, and two foundational Day-1 decisions reversed on measured evidence rather than defended.

TechRustGoTypeScriptAWSCDKTerraformPostgresClickHouseNeo4jmicroVMsOpenTelemetryclean architecture
Click to enlarge
Overview

Security as an engineering discipline, not a review gate bolted to the end of a release. We set the strategy — what actually threatens this business, in what order, and what it is worth spending on — then build the architecture and the code that make it true: least privilege by construction, blast radius bounded, and every access path leaving evidence behind it. We will also audit what someone else built and hand back a fix order rather than a severity list.

Where it gets hard

Two things quietly break most security programs. Controls that are conventions instead of constructions: privilege enforced in a runbook rather than in the type system, the database role, or the network boundary, which means it holds right up until someone is in a hurry. And reviews that cannot tell you what they failed to look at — a check that could not see its data has to say so, never report a pass, because on the page a vacuous pass and a clean one read exactly alike. We close both, and we write down the coverage as honestly as the findings.

Engagementssecurity strategy and roadmapthreat modelingsecurity architecturesecure-by-construction engineeringidentity, secrets and key managementsecurity operations and detectioncode, cloud and data auditstechnical diligence
Proof

Database Audit Engine — a read-only ClickHouse and Neo4j auditor built the way we build controls: 105 checks (62 ClickHouse, 43 Neo4j) behind a readonly=2 user and Neo4j's reader role, a parse-time statement allowlist, per-query time/row/memory caps, and query literals stripped at ingest so no raw query text or parameter value can reach a report. Findings collapse into causal chains, so twenty become three in fix order.

Techthreat modelingleast privilegeIAMKMS and key managementsecrets managementencryption at rest and in transitaudited accessread-only auditingdetection engineeringmemory safetyRust
Click to enlarge · 3 screens

03/ How we work

Tools and tests are table stakes. This is the judgment that keeps a complex system standing, and keeps it standing when someone is trying to take it down.

Design the failure first.

01

We reason about how a system breaks before how it runs, then make whole classes of bug impossible: invalid states unrepresentable in the type system, the dangerous paths locked as enforced invariants, not guidelines.

Assume the adversary.

02

Security is a design input, not a review gate at the end. We threat-model the system we are about to build, scope privilege where it cannot be bypassed (the type system, the role, the network boundary) rather than in a runbook, bound the blast radius of every credential, and make sure the access paths leave evidence behind them.

Evidence over assumption.

03

No claim ships without the command output behind it. We measure against real telemetry and benchmarks instead of rebuilt guesses, and stay skeptical of our own thesis until the data backs it.

Determinism is a feature.

04

We build systems that reproduce bit-for-bit and prove what they did: replayable, auditable, byte-stable, so behavior is verifiable, not "trust us."

Architecture for change.

05

Hexagonal boundaries, DDD bounded contexts, and offline-first cores with swappable adapters, so the system stays testable without the live world and changeable as requirements move.

Done means observed.

06

A feature is finished when it's been booted and exercised in real conditions, the way it will actually be used: passing unit tests is the floor, not the bar.

Scope is a contract.

07

We stay inside the agreed boundary and surface deviations instead of absorbing them silently, and every change traces back to the reason that prompted it.

04/ Our defaults

[01]

Serious, not stiff.

Strong opinions, held quietly and shipped. Easy to work with, hard to bluff.

[02]

Relevance is the job.

The field moves, so we move. Staying current is the work, not a hobby.

[03]

We own the outcome.

If we ship it, we answer for it. We surface the problems early and fix what breaks, no finger pointing.

[04]

Pressure is a privilege.

The hard problems are the point. Bring us the ones that actually matter.

[05]

Credentials are the work.

We learned the field by building and shipping it, not from a syllabus.

[06]

No resume-driven complexity.

We build what the problem needs, not what looks impressive on a slide.

05/ The Process

From first message to hands on keyboard in days, not months. Here's the path.

01

You send the problem.

A short brief: what you're building and where it's stuck.

02

We scope it together.

A focused questionnaire becomes the outcomes, deliverables, and timeline you sign off on: no ambiguity, no scope creep.

03

Intro & kick-off call.

We meet, walk the scope together, and align on outcomes, owners, and timeline, and confirm the fit before either side commits.

04

We lock the start date.

We agree on an onboarding date and exactly what's needed to hit the ground running on day one.

05

You get us set up.

Repo access (GitHub), tracking (Jira / Linear), the docs we need, and a channel (Slack, Teams, or Discord).

06

Hands on keyboard.

We're shipping by the agreed date: visible, traceable work from the first commit.

06/ FAQ

07/ Contact

Bring us the complex.

Tell us what you're building and where it's stuck.

or email [email protected]


BLACK BYTE LABSBuilt in the USA