AI code review bottleneck diagnostic · Validation pilot
Some bottlenecksprotect you.Find out which.
AI can speed up coding while leaving your team with more to review. Which delays are necessary checks, and which are avoidable waiting?
FreQNC has developed an AI Bottleneck Diagnostic for engineering teams. Join the pilot to find out what is safe to scale in your AI processes and what is not.
Apply first. Agree the scope and any fees before committing.
For engineering leaders whose teams pass work between people before it ships. Best suited to software companies with around 8–30 engineers.
What we heard
The delay is only part of the story.
FreQNC explored 17 concepts over five testing rounds with 25 senior leaders accountable for AI-assisted work, across Europe and the UK, during September and October 2026.
Source: FreQNC Discovery Report
- senior leaders
- 25
- testing rounds
- 5
- concepts explored
- 17
Across Europe and the UK
Between September and October 2026
Engineering and non-engineering roles
Source: FreQNC Discovery Report · September–October 2026
Work passes between people.
Participants described handovers between creating work, checking it and making a decision. That is why the pilot looks at queues and what happens between steps.
The checks already have a purpose.
Participants described safeguards they had introduced themselves. A record of activity cannot explain what those checks protect. The pilot asks what to preserve, not just what to speed up.
Who sees the findings matters.
Visibility affected how participants responded to the concepts. Before a pilot starts, we agree who can see the findings and how the information will be handled.
The next question: which waiting can you remove without losing the check?
This was qualitative concept research across engineering and non-engineering roles. The concepts and testing procedure changed between rounds. It informs the pilot; it does not establish the diagnostic's accuracy or business outcomes.
An example from the Diagnostic
What a finding looks like.
Illustrative. Not customer results.
Example review areas
Example finding to investigate
A specialist check has a clear purpose; work waits for reviewer availability.
Possible next step
Keep the check. Examine coverage and handover.
The review queue
More code can mean more work waiting for a decision.
A pull request is ready, but the person who understands the risk is already reviewing something else.
FreQNC's pilot asks a practical question: where could the workflow improve, and what must that improvement preserve?
The proposed output
A clearer basis for your next review decision.
The proposed pilot gives you a focused review of agreed workflows, a short leadership summary and priorities to discuss with your team.
A map of where work waits
Identify queues and handovers in the agreed workflow, with the available evidence and the questions it leaves open.
A review of the checks already in place
Explore what existing safeguards are intended to protect and where responsibility or review criteria need to be clearer.
Priorities for what to examine first
A short summary of suggested next steps, including the rationale and trade-offs. Your team decides what changes.
Keep the purpose of the check in view
Illustrative decisions, not diagnostic results
Slow, with a clear purpose
Preserve the safeguard and investigate the waiting around it.
Slow, with an unclear purpose
Examine duplicated steps, unclear ownership or unnecessary handovers.
Fast, with supporting evidence
Understand what is working before extending the approach.
Fast, with unresolved concerns
Investigate the review before increasing the volume.
Scope and effort
A focused pilot with your team.
Proposed plan · estimates to agree together
3 weeks
Planned time from kick-off to the leadership summary.
Around 3½ hours
Estimated combined time from your team.
3–5 review areas
Proposed focus, agreed together at the start.
The final scope, data requirements, timing and any fees are agreed before the pilot begins.
- 01
Agree the question
Choose the review areas, the decisions you want to make and the evidence needed. Agree access and data handling before sharing records.
- 02
Examine the workflow together
Review the agreed workflow evidence alongside your team's explanation of how the work happens. Separate recorded activity from assumptions about review quality.
- 03
Test whether the findings help
Discuss the proposed priorities and assess whether they change what you would examine or do next. Record what remains uncertain.
Why participate
What it asks of you. What it gives back.
What it asks
A review problem worth investigating
A delay, an unclear handover or a check you are not sure about.
Around 3½ hours of your team's time
Spread across the three weeks of the pilot. A planning estimate, confirmed together.
Honest challenge of the findings
You know the workflow, so the human understanding of findings is the priority.
What you get back
A map of where work waits
Queues and handovers in the review areas you agree to examine.
What your checks are protecting
A review of the safeguards already in place, and the waiting around them.
Priorities to examine first
A short summary to take to your team. They decide what changes.
Design-partner terms
Scope, timing and any fees agreed before the pilot begins.
It fits if
- Your team uses GitHub and AI coding tools.
- Work passes between authors, reviewers or specialist teams before release.
- You have a review delay, unclear handover or concern about the checks that you want to understand.
- You can involve someone who knows the workflow and discuss the findings with them.
If the findings do not add something beyond the reports you already have, that is important feedback too.
Trust and data
Understand the workflow. Respect the people doing it.
Teams, never individuals.
The pilot examines team workflows and review processes. Nobody is ranked or scored as a person.
No repository access to apply.
The application collects contact and fit details only. Applying needs no code upload.
Access is agreed before anything starts.
Before a pilot begins, we agree what information is needed, who can see it and how it will be handled.
Questions
Questions about the FreQNC pilot.
What is the FreQNC AI Bottleneck Diagnostic?
It is a diagnostic FreQNC has developed to help engineering leaders investigate code-review queues, handovers and existing safeguards as teams use AI coding tools. The pilot will test whether the findings help teams decide what to examine or change first.
Who is the pilot for?
The best fit is a software business with around 20–150 staff and 8–30 engineers, using GitHub and AI coding tools. More important than size is that work passes between people before release and there is a review problem worth investigating.
What would our team receive?
The proposed output is a review of agreed workflow areas, a short leadership summary and suggested priorities for discussion. Scope and deliverables are agreed before starting.
How much time does a pilot take?
The proposed plan is three weeks from kick-off to the summary, with around three and a half hours of combined time from your team. These are planning estimates to confirm for your organisation.
How is this different from GitHub reporting or an internal review?
The pilot is intended to connect workflow records with your team's context and the purpose of your existing checks. A key validation question is whether that adds useful information beyond the reports and internal review you already have.
Does the diagnostic prove that AI-generated code is safe?
No. Workflow records can show patterns, but they do not establish code safety, a person's attention or review quality on their own. Your team remains responsible for engineering judgement and release decisions.
Does applying give FreQNC access to our repositories?
No. The application collects contact and fit details. Any pilot data access is discussed and agreed separately before work begins.
Is there a fee or commitment?
Submitting an application does not commit you to a pilot. We discuss fit, scope and any fees before you decide whether to take part.
Become a pilot partner
Get the Diagnostic on design-partner terms.
Tell us a little about your team. Rachel at FreQNC will review it and come back on fit, scope and what the pilot delivers for your team.
No repository access needed to apply.