Who we are, and why we built this
A group of working engineers, a service built around explanation rather than delivery, and a straight answer on where we stand.
A small group of working software engineers
We’re a small group of working software engineers. Between us we’ve spent years in backend systems, databases, machine learning, and frontend work, and most of us were tutoring on the side long before any of this was a company.
The thing that started it was a pattern we kept running into. A student would turn up with an assignment, get an answer from somewhere, hand it in, and pass. Then the next assignment would arrive built on top of the one they never actually learned, and they’d be in the same position again, except further behind. By the third or fourth round the gap was too wide to close in a week.
So we built the version we wished existed. Every job that leaves here goes out with the reasoning attached, because code you can’t explain isn’t a problem you solved. It’s a problem you moved to next month.
Founded: 2026, by 4 engineers. Still run by the same people, and every one of them still writes code.
Get you through this one, and leave you needing less help on the next
We can say it in one sentence. Get you through the assignment sitting in front of you right now, and leave you able to handle the next one with less help than this one took.
That breaks into three things, in this order.
You should be able to run it.
Not on our machine. On yours, in your course’s setup, against your compiler flags and your version. A file that works everywhere except where you need it is worth nothing to you, and we’ve seen students lose an entire grade to a version mismatch nobody warned them about.
You should be able to explain it.
Every delivery includes a walkthrough and a sheet of questions somebody is likely to ask you about that specific solution. If you can answer those, you can sit in a lab check-in and hold your own. That’s the whole point of sending them.
You should be further along than when you started.
Better grade this semester, yes. But also better positioned for the semester after that, and for the interview two years from now where somebody asks you to reason out loud about a problem you’ve never seen. That’s the part nobody thinks about at midnight, and it’s the part that decides where you end up working.
The explanation is the product
Ten years ago the hard part was getting code. It isn’t anymore. Anybody can open a chat window and have three hundred lines back before the kettle boils.
What hasn’t changed is that somebody still has to understand it. Usually you, usually under pressure, usually with a TA leaning over your shoulder asking why you picked a dictionary instead of a list. AI is very good at producing an answer and very bad at telling you which parts of it matter, which parts are load-bearing, and which parts will fall over the moment the input changes shape.
That gap is the whole reason this company exists. We want students who can look at a line and say what it does, why it’s there, and what breaks if you remove it. Not students who can generate a file and hope nobody asks.
There’s a longer version of the problem too, and it’s worth thinking about before you’re in it. A student who copies through the first two years walks into a technical interview in the third and finds out that nobody in that room cares about their assignments. They care whether you can think. That skill gets built in exactly the courses people are most tempted to shortcut.
So the direction we’re building in is this: the explanation is the product, and the code is what the explanation is about. Most of this market sells it the other way round. We know that. We’re building it our way anyway.
We picked one country and built for its specifics
Plenty of services will help a student anywhere. We picked one country and built for its specifics, because the details are where marks actually get lost.
The course sequence.
US computer science programs follow a recognizable path, from your first programming course through object orientation, data structures, systems, databases, and out the other side into a capstone. We organize around that sequence rather than around a list of technologies, because you don’t think in technologies. You think about the course that’s currently going badly.
The grading platforms.
Gradescope, Canvas, Blackboard, Moodle, HackerRank. Each one runs code differently and fails it differently. Tell us which one you’re submitting into and the work gets tested the way it’s going to be tested.
Departmental servers.
A lot of courses still grade on a shared Linux box with a specific compiler and a specific standard. Code that runs beautifully on a Mac laptop and dies on that server is a very common way to lose points. Send the specifics and we build against them.
Rubrics.
US courses publish them, and graders follow them closely. We read yours before quoting and we build to it line by line, which is also why a rubric mismatch is a free fix.
The clock.
We work across all US time zones, seven days a week, including the nights before Monday deadlines when most of the traffic here actually arrives.
Where we stand on academic integrity
Most companies write this section in legal language so nobody reads it. We’d rather you read it.
Here’s the honest version. Learning from a finished piece of work is old, ordinary, and how a very large share of working engineers learned. Solution manuals, worked examples, model answers, office hours, and tutors have existed for as long as universities have. None of that is controversial and none of it is new.
What is a real line is putting somebody else’s work in front of a grader with your name on it. That line exists, it’s drawn in your student handbook rather than on this page, and it’s worth the ten minutes it takes to find out where your particular department has put it. We’re not going to tell you your school is the exception, and we’re not going to tell you the line isn’t there. Both are things that would cost you a lot more than they’d cost us.
What we build is the reference solution and the explanation together, so the version of this that keeps you on the right side of that line is actually available to you. Read the walkthrough. Work through the question sheet. Be able to defend every decision in the file to somebody who asks. Do that, and you’ve learned the material regardless of what route you took to it.
What we won’t do, at any price
- Take an exam, a quiz, a timed test, or anything proctored. Not once, not for a returning customer, not for more money.
- Log into your student portal, your LMS, your school email, or any account that belongs to your institution. We stay out of your accounts completely.
- Promise you a grade. We don’t set grades. Anyone who tells you otherwise has already told you something false, which is useful to know before you pay them.
- Sell the same solution twice. Every job is written once, for one brief. That’s partly principle and partly arithmetic: a service that sends one file to forty people has put forty matching submissions into a similarity database.
- Write anything built to break into a system, damage one, or harm someone.
None of these are negotiable, and asking a second time doesn’t change the answer. If a service you’re weighing up says yes to either of the first two, that’s the single most useful thing you’ll learn about them.
Who actually does the work
Every job goes to a named developer who works in that language, and you get their name and background before any money moves. If the fit looks wrong for your course, say so and it moves to somebody else.
Getting hired here means completing a paid test assignment taken from a real past brief, having it marked by somebody senior in that language, and having your degree verified. There’s no equivalent-experience route around that. First jobs get checked by a second person before anything reaches a student, and every job is rated afterwards.
No AI writes your code. A person does, and you can talk to them.
Talk to us
Send the brief and you’ll have a real answer from a real engineer in about five minutes, including an honest one about timing if the deadline is tighter than the work allows.