Who it's for
Argy is not for everyone. It is for you if you tick three boxes.
We would rather save you time: our autonomous, governed engineering factory was designed for regulated-sector companies that buy the upkeep of their production applications from outside. Here is how to check in two minutes.
It all starts with a simple question.
Who maintains your production applications today? If the answer is a contractor paid by the day, if every change must be justifiable to a regulator, and if you have neither the time nor the teams to build your own tooled chain, you are exactly where Argy makes the difference. If not, this page will tell you just as frankly.
Three criteria, not one more. They add up.
The three criteria that make Argy the right choice
None of these criteria is enough on its own. Their combination creates the pain Argy solves: regulated production, maintained from outside, with no internal means to take back control.
Strong regulatory exposure
Your sector is among the most regulated (insurance, banking, mutual insurance, social protection, public sector), and every change must be justifiable to an auditor, under the AI Act, DORA, NIS2 or an ISO 42001 program.
Limited platform capacity
Your company cannot build and approve its own agent chain in-house: not the platform teams, not the timeline, not the appetite to sign off its own accreditation.
Heavy reliance on external engineering
Application maintenance and support rely largely on contractors billed by the day, with a growing backlog and limited visibility into what is actually delivered.
If you recognized yourself, here is what changes for everyone around the table. First for whoever owns production.
CIOs and production leaders: take back control without hiring an army
You keep your applications, your conventions and your teams. What changes is who produces the upkeep: a governed factory your engineers run, instead of a maintenance contract whose content you discover on the invoice. Backlog and debt shrink, and you measure what is delivered with the indicators you already track.
Then for whoever will have to sign off.
CISOs and compliance: evidence for every change, produced by design
Every delivery comes with its evidence bundle: what was modified, which controls ran, who approved. You no longer rebuild an audit file from six tools, you open it. And vulnerability remediation, the factory's first workstream, stops sleeping in a backlog.
Finally for whoever negotiates the contract.
Procurement: compare per unit of work, not per man-day
Day-rate billing is hard to negotiate because it says nothing about what is produced. Argy gives you a cost-per-unit-of-work calculation method tied to traced deliveries. The file is procurement-ready: European hosting, exportable repository, contracted autonomy tier.
You have probably looked at other options already. Let's talk about them frankly.
What about other solutions?
There are excellent tools on the market. The question is not whether they are good, but whether they solve your problem: maintaining, under regulatory constraints, applications that already run.
Application generators
These tools start from an empty repository. Argy starts from production code. If your goal is to create a new application in a few hours, that is what they are built for; if your goal is to maintain the ones that run your business, that is our ground.
Coding assistants already in place
Keep them. We are the layer that makes them work under your rules and produces the evidence of what they did.
Your current maintenance contractor
Ask them to quote you per unit of work. The answer will tell you a lot about the visibility you have today.
Which leaves the most natural temptation for a strong IT department: building it all yourself.
Why not build this chain in-house?
Imagine you launch the project. Good news first: you will not have to pick a side against the market leaders, because Argy does not compete with them, it governs them. The best models and assistants remain usable, framed by your rules. So the real work lies elsewhere: connecting production and traceability. That is where the project gets hard, because evidence cannot be assembled from six disparate tools. Stitching heterogeneous logs together after the fact does not hold up in front of a demanding auditor.
To get there anyway, you will need a dedicated platform team, for the long run. That is the real cost of building: headcount far more than licenses, and precisely the resource you lack. Suppose that team exists: when the time comes to accredit the chain, an independence question arises, because nobody signs off their own accreditation, and your auditors will not fail to ask it.
Then there is the timeline. While your team translated the AI Act, DORA, NIS2 and ISO 42001 into executable rules, months would pass without a single governed delivery. With Argy, these sector policies are delivered on day one: your engineers spend their energy on your applications, not on rebuilding the tool.
In practice, where do those who recognized themselves start?
The workstreams you start with
Almost always with security, where the budget already exists: remediating SAST and DAST alerts, handling pentest findings, version upgrades and CVEs, infrastructure-as-code compliance. Then come standardized delivery across teams and the gradual takeover of application maintenance, as trust builds and the autonomy tier is widened by contract.
And now, the cases where we will advise you not to sign.
When Argy is not the right choice
If you are starting a product from scratch, with no production application to maintain, an application generator will serve you better. If your sector imposes no evidence requirements, our bundle is value you will not use. And if you already have a tooled, accredited and available platform team, you may already have what you need. We would rather tell you now.
In every case, one thing never changes: your factory repository belongs to you and can be exported. We will never keep you through lock-in, only through what we deliver.
Three boxes ticked? Then the next step is about your perimeter.
Let's test these criteria against your reality
In one meeting, we review your regulatory exposure, your platform capacity and your reliance on external engineering. You leave with a clear answer, even if that answer is no.