An orchestration agent, scoped with you before it is priced. This agent coordinates several specialised agents. Its orchestration follows your actual workflows — which is why it is scoped with you rather than bought off the shelf. We establish the scope together, then the quotation commits it. The journeys described below form the scope that this review refines and the quotation commits. The specialised agents it coordinates can be ordered today. Request a quote

● Business offer — IT & new technologies

The AI agent for tech teams: code, test and document faster, without exposing your code

Code generation, review, testing, bug fixing, documentation, technical support: a huge share of a development team's time goes into repetitive or low-value tasks. Your AI agent absorbs that work. Hosted in France — on local inference or an isolated resource — your source code, your repositories and your intellectual property are never entrusted to a foreign service. The developer keeps the lead: the agent assists, the human decides.

Free audit (15 min) → See the prices

Hosted in France Code & repositories protected GDPR & AI Act: governed deployment The developer decides

Updated on 07/09/2026

Deployed in a few weeks

Developer assistant · hosted in France

On the payment service, PR #482 adds partial refunds. Review it and write the missing tests.

Review of PR #482. The logic is correct, but 3 points: a rounding on amounts in cents that can drift, a query with no index on order_id (risk of slowness in production), and one uncovered case: a refund greater than the amount already captured.
4 unit tests proposed, including the edge case — for review before the merge.
⛓ Sourced · your Git repository + PR #482 (read-only)

The code sent to the AI — does it leave our premises?

Your code stays with you. The agent runs on local inference or on an isolated resource hosted in France: your code, your repositories and your secrets stay on your infrastructure, architecture designed to reduce exposure to extraterritorial legislation, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity. Nothing is sent to a third-party service or reused to train a model.
I am preparing a review summary for the PR, for your approval.
✎ Action · review comment ready — the developer approves the merge

Local inference · no data outside the EU

Code hosted in France

Sovereign by designLocal inference or hosting in France

GDPR & AI Act: governed deploymentTraceability & human oversight

TurnkeyDesigned, installed and operated for you

The developer decidesThe agent assists, never ships alone

✦ In brief

In a tech team — IT services firm, web agency, software publisher, startup or IT department — a Blue Lemon Agent agent speeds up the repetitive tasks of the development cycle: code generation, review, testing, bug fixing, documentation and technical support. It runs on local inference or is hosted in France: your source code, your repositories and your intellectual property are never exposed to a foreign service, architecture designed to reduce exposure to extraterritorial legislation, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity. The time saved is reinvested in design, architecture and product value. Live within a few weeks.

100%

hosted in France in the target architecture

transfer outside the EU in the target architecture

uses ready to deploy on this scope

decision taken without human approval

Reference points describing our offer, not results measured at a client. The scale of the gain is confirmed by a pilot on your own scope.

The context

Why tech is adopting AI — and why it distrusts consumer assistants

Development teams are the first to see the value of AI: code generation, review, testing, documentation. But they are also the first to measure the risk: entrusting your source code and your secrets to a foreign service is a leak of intellectual property.

! The issue

Tech teams face constant pressure on delivery deadlines, technical debt and quality, with developers who are expensive and in short supply. Yet plugging in a consumer code assistant often amounts to sending source code, secrets, database schemas and business logic to a service hosted outside Europe, subject to the Cloud Act — and sometimes reused to train models.

✓ Our answer

AI is only of lasting interest to a tech team if it is sovereign and confidential by design. Local inference or an isolated resource hosted in France, controlled read access to the repositories, systematic human oversight, merge and release decisions reserved to the developer: the speed gained is never paid for in lost intellectual property. The aim is not to replace your developers, but to give them back thinking time for architecture and product value.

The decisive point

Your code, your repositories, your IP: sovereignty & confidentiality

Source code and intellectual property are a tech company's most valuable asset. Here is how the architecture of our agents protects them, line by line.

Local inference

The agent can run on your infrastructure or on a team machine: no line of code leaves the network, nothing passes through a public cloud.

Hosting in France

Otherwise, a dedicated and isolated resource, hosted in France under French law — your code and your repositories: processing and access within the European Union targeted by the architecture.

Reduced extraterritorial exposure

Architecture designed to reduce exposure to extraterritorial legislation, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity for your code: our architecture stays out of the American hyperscalers' reach, even when hosted in Europe.

One isolated resource per client

No pooling: a strictly dedicated environment, and your code never trains a shared model.

Controlled access to the repositories

Role-based read access (RBAC), encryption in transit and at rest, secrets management and logging of actions.

AI Act: governed deployment

An agent strictly in support; no automated merge and no automated release; traceability and human oversight from end to end.

What depends on the architecture chosen These points are not general guarantees: they are settled deployment by deployment, in the quotation.

The applicable location is that of the architecture set out in the quotation and verified before commissioning.
Local execution is announced only for the configuration explicitly described and accepted in the quotation.
The applicable isolation depends on the deployment mode set out in the quotation; no dedicated isolation is presumed.
The encryption mechanisms in transit and at rest, their components and key management are those documented for the architecture chosen.
Roles and permissions are configured and accepted for the identities and systems actually connected.
The events logged, their content, their retention period and who may access them are defined for the deployment chosen.

For the most sensitive environments, SecNumCloud and on-premise deployment options are available depending on your requirements. A single architecture is designed to answer both the GDPR and extraterritorial exposure. Designed for deployment in line with the GDPR and the AI Act, after the processing, roles and context-specific risks have been assessed.

Demonstration

See the agent at work

4 real situations, taken from those that come up most often. Pick one: the exchange unfolds as it would in your organisation.

A scripted demonstration. These exchanges show how the agent behaves — its sources, its refusals, what it leaves to your teams. Nothing is sent from this page, no model is queried here, and the matters named are fictional. That is precisely what we promise your data.
The behaviours shown here — monitoring, automation rules, routing and reminders — are configured with you during deployment, from your tools, your rules and your thresholds.
The architecture points named in these exchanges — location, local execution, isolation, encryption, role-based access, logging — are not a guarantee attached to the demonstration: they are those of the architecture set out in your quotation, and verified before commissioning.

Developer assistant · hosted in France

Four flags this morning, with no request from you.
· An API key appeared in a commit on 01/08 on branch feat/export-csv. It is still valid and grants access to your transactional email service.
· A dependency with a published vulnerability has been in production for 23 days. The fixed version was released on 15/07.
· The TLS certificate for the partner API expires in 12 days. Renewal is manual on your side.
· Backup restores have not been tested for 8 months. The backups themselves run daily. morning-watch_4-flags.pdf4 flags · exposure and deadline
⛓ Source · repositories, dependency log, certificates, backup logs

The key in the commit — can you revoke it?

No — and you have something more urgent than revoking it, let me show you what.
Revoking a key cuts whatever it feeds. Here it serves transactional email: cutting it blind stops your order confirmations. The order matters more than the speed.
What I established, so you can decide in three minutes:
· The key appeared on 01/08 at 16:42, commit a3f91c.
· It is still present in history, even though a later commit removed it from the file.
· The repository is private — the exposure is internal, which is not nothing but changes the scale.
· It is used by two services, which I have listed with their environment variable.
The steps are attached, in order: create the new key, deploy it to both services, verify a send, and only then revoke the old one. None of those four steps is mine. exposed-key_steps.pdf4 ordered steps · 2 services concerned
⛓ Source · repository history, configuration of both services

How did you spot all that? And who do you tell?

I watch, continuously, what you have opened to me: your repositories and their history, your dependency log against published advisories, your certificate dates, and your backup and restore logs. A secret entering a commit, a fixed version shipping, a certificate approaching, a restore no longer tested — I say so, I do not wait to be asked.
Routing follows your organisation: the key to the technical lead and the commit author, both together and nobody else — an exposed secret circulated in a team channel is exposed a second time; the dependency to whoever maintains the service; the certificate to whoever is on call; the restores to the technical lead.
With a chase: 4 h on the key, 24 h on the certificate and the dependency, 7 days on the restores. Then a weekly summary: by subject, never by commit author.

And I do not stop at the flag: all four files are built. For the key: the purge command written for this repository, the list of clones to resynchronise, the revocation request drafted, and a branch replacing the secret with a reference to your vault, tested. For the dependency: the version bump on a branch, tests green. For the certificate: the renewal request pre-filled, with the exact names to cover. For the restores: the test script and the window where it disturbs nobody. Four subjects, four files ready, nothing to look up twice.
What is left to sign, and why that is an advantage: revoking a secret can stop production, merging commits everybody's branch, deploying puts it live, disabling a test removes a net. Those four gestures carry a name and a time — that is what means somebody always warns first. You approve, they follow on within the minute.
And I read what you have opened to me, repository by repository, every access logged and withdrawable on a word.
✎ Proposal · watch and chases to be configured — you set the thresholds

Release 2.14 goes out tonight. Merge the 6 approved PRs and trigger the deployment.

Everything is ready and checked. Neither the merge nor the deployment comes from me — and on this release, that is useful.
5 of the 6 PRs are good to merge: approved, up to date with main, tests green, no migrations.
The sixth deserves thirty seconds: PR #519 carries a non-reversible database migration — a dropped column. It is correct, it is approved, and it does not replay backwards. Deploy all six together and your rollback plan no longer covers the whole release.
What I suggest, and it costs nothing: deploy the five, verify, then the sixth on its own. You keep a simple rollback on 95% of the batch.
The rest is ready: the release note written from the PRs, a summary of the new environment variables, and the post-deployment checklist. release-2.14_prepared.pdf6 PRs · 1 non-reversible migration
⛓ Source · 6 PRs, migrations, deployment history

And if a test fails at the last minute?

Then I tell you which one and why — I do not disable it. A red test is information; disabled, it becomes silence, and nobody remembers to switch it back on.
What I do in that case, and it takes a minute: I isolate the test, trace the last commit that touched the code it covers, and say whether it fails reproducibly or intermittently. Across your last 30 failures, 11 were intermittent — and all eleven involved three tests, always the same ones.
That is the real subject: three flaky tests cast doubt on the whole suite, and push people to override by reflex. I have listed them, with their failure rate.

A proposal, if you approve it: on each failure, the report goes to the author of the last relevant commit, marked reproducible or intermittent, chased at 24 h. And a monthly flaky-test report to the technical lead — by test, never by author. A flaky test is a team debt, not the fault of whoever wrote it. flaky-tests_30-failures.pdf11 intermittent · 3 tests involved
✎ Proposal · failure diagnosis — no test is ever disabled

The billing PR, the one you are not merging — what exactly did you see?

Five risks named and located on the change under review — not an opinion on the PR, five points each tied to its line.
· Rounding that can diverge — Facture.php, line 214: the discount is applied after the line is rounded, whereas the rest of the code rounds after the discount. Replaying July's 4,800 invoice lines, 17 differ by one cent, and 2 by two cents on cascaded discounts. A cent on an invoice shows up in reconciliation, not in a test.
· Query with no index — FactureRepository.php, line 88: the filter is on client_id, date_emission and no index covers the pair. On the test dataset, 340 ms; at production volume the execution plan announces a full scan of 2.1 million rows. The index is written, the migration is ready, it is not applied.
· Edge case not covered — a credit note larger than the original invoice. The code lets it through and produces a negative net; no test exercises it.
· Edge case not covered — 0% VAT on an exempt line: the pro-rata division runs with no guard. The test exists but covers the standard rate.
· Untraced change — the wording of the invoice's statutory mention changes at line 302, and nothing in the PR says who asked for it.
The two missing tests are written and attached to the PR: credit note greater than invoice, exempt line. Both fail on the branch as it stands — which is what makes them useful. Making them pass calls for a business decision — refuse the credit note, or accept it and carry it forward — and that decision is not in the code.
What I do not carry here, and I would rather say so: the test campaign and software quality tracking belong to a dedicated agent, ordered separately. I flag and propose the tests missing on the change under review; I do not run your test plan.
⛓ Sourced · diff of PR #497, PostgreSQL execution plan, test coverage

We have 14 tickets about an export error. Find out what it is.

One cause, and it reproduces.
What the 14 tickets share: all concern an export above 50,000 rows, all on accounts with the "custom columns" option enabled, and all since version 2.13 of 22/07.
What the logs say: a server-side timeout at 30 seconds, reached from around 47,000 rows when the option is on. Below that, no occurrences.
What it is not: a general outage. 812 exports completed over the same period.
Two replies are ready: the one to the 14 customers — stating what happens, in which case, and offering the verified workaround (export in slices); and the technical ticket, with the trace, the observed threshold and the 2.13 commit that added the extra join.
Neither is sent. export-incident_14-tickets.pdf1 cause · observed threshold · verified workaround
⛓ Source · 14 tickets, server logs, 2.13 history

The workaround — did you actually verify it?

Yes, and I will tell you exactly how — because a workaround announced untested makes twice the tickets.
What I did: replayed three exports from the test dataset, at 40,000, 47,000 and 60,000 rows, option on. The first two pass, the third fails at the same second. Split into two slices of 30,000, it passes.
What I did not do: test on a customer's data. The test dataset was enough, and there was no reason to touch real data for this.
What the reply says, and does not: it gives the threshold and the workaround. It promises no fix date — that is a roadmap call, not a technical fact.

And an observation beyond these 14 tickets: 203 accounts have the option on and regularly exceed 50,000 rows. Eleven of them have exported since 2.13; the others have not yet. I can warn them before they open a ticket, with the same message — or wait for the fix. That is your call, and it is not obvious: warning 203 customers about a problem 192 have not met has a cost too. accounts-concerned_203.pdf203 accounts · 11 have already exported
✎ Support · workaround tested on the test dataset — sending stays with you

Why don't we cache the billing service? There was a reason but nobody remembers it.

The decision is written, dated and reasoned — and there is a sequel nobody attached to it.
The decision: architecture note ADR-014, of 12/09/2023. Reason: the service exposes amounts that must reflect the database to the second, because of a bank reconciliation screen used live by the accountants.
What contradicted it, and is written nowhere: the reconciliation screen was removed in April 2025, PR #331, replaced by an export. The reason behind ADR-014 has not existed for sixteen months.
What I measured before leaving it to you: over the last thirty days, the service takes 412,000 reads a day, 94% of them on data unchanged for more than an hour. A one-minute cache would cover those 94% and divide the read load by eight — the measurement is reproducible, and the query that produces it is in the note.
What the ADR's text does not say, and only you know: whether other implicit reasons weighed in 2023. That is why the question is put at the front of ADR-014bis, not in its conclusion — and why an architecture decision is signed: the signature is what lets it be read back in two years.
The draft of ADR-014bis is written, with both dated facts and the figure. ADR-014_and-what-made-it-stale.pdf1 decision · 1 fact that contradicts it
⛓ Source · ADR-014 of 12/09/2023, PR #331 of April 2025

Are there others like that?

Yes, and that is the real lesson. Your 31 architecture notes were last reviewed when they were written. Seven mention a component, a screen or a service that no longer exists.
Three of them govern choices still applied today — that is, rules the team follows for a reason that has gone.
What I have written for the seven: a dated banner at the head of each note — "premise stale since April 2025, see PR #331" — with the fact that justifies it and its reference. Seven banners, ready, and none applied: they are waiting on your agreement, because they alter a record.
Why a banner rather than a removal: a stale note stays visible and stays marked as such. Removing it would lose the history of the reasoning, which is often more useful than the conclusion — and that is precisely what the banner preserves.
What I can do next, on your approval: match each architecture note against the removals of components it mentions, and tell its author — or the technical lead if the author has left — that one of its premises no longer holds. A chase at fifteen days, a quarterly report.

Of the seven, two authors have left the team. That is precisely where written memory serves most, and where it is most fragile. architecture-notes_7-stale.pdf31 notes · 7 mention a removed component
✎ Proposal · notes matched — none is rewritten

Local inference · no data outside the EU

Your case is not here? That is exactly what a 15-minute conversation is for. Book the free audit →

Use cases

The uses of AI in a tech team

Each use corresponds to an agent we deploy. All of them work in support, subject to approval by your developers.

Included in your agent The 3 capabilities essential to this promise are included, at no extra cost.

Code generation & review

Writing code, reviewing pull requests, detecting bugs and vulnerabilities, refactoring — proposed, for approval before the merge.

Risks named and located on the change under review

A rounding that may drift, a query without an index, an edge case not covered: each point is named and tied to its line. The agent flags the tests that are missing and can propose some; test campaigns and software quality are the work of a dedicated agent, ordered separately.

Review report, ready to post on the pull request

A summary bringing together the points to settle, to be read before the merge; it is the developer who approves the merge.

Controls and safeguards These 4 controls are built into the agent: they frame what it does, whatever plan you pick. They are not chosen and are not added to your order.

Human oversight, costs, quality, incidents and safe stop Run tests, security analysis and human review before any change Version, log, roll back and measure quality Bound the work to the repository and the request: the agent reads only what the client opens to it — the repository and the pull request named, its files, nothing beyond. Scope and permissions are set by the client; the agent does not widen them.

What the agent must be connected to This connection is required for the agent to work. It concerns your information system and is scoped during the audit.

Handoff contracts, least-privilege permissions and shared context

Need to go further?

These agents handle a different business process, with their own owner and their own price. They are added to this one.

AI web development agent

Pages, components and web integrations produced from your mockups: a sovereign AI agent, hosted in France, that speeds up your front-end teams.

Website development from 594 € excl. VAT / month Discover the agent →

AI agent for mobile app development

A sovereign AI agent, hosted in France, that helps your teams build screens, business logic and APIs for your iOS and Android apps.

Mobile app development from 609 € excl. VAT / month Discover the agent →

AI testing & software quality agent

Writing the tests, reproducing a bug, hunting a regression before going to production takes up a considerable share of the team's time — essential work that is rarely valued.

Testing & software quality (QA) from 522 € excl. VAT / month Discover the agent →

AI agent for technical support & documentation

Technical support answers the same questions a hundred times, and the documentation always falls behind the code.

Technical support & documentation from 664 € excl. VAT / month Discover the agent →

AI knowledge base agent

The information exists in your company — but it is scattered across procedures, contracts, an intranet and the memory of a few people.

Document agent (FAQ, knowledge base) from 678 € excl. VAT / month Discover the agent →

Does your need fall outside this?

In 15 minutes we identify the most relevant agent — without oversizing the project.

Book the free audit → Build your agent

The gain

How much time can a technical team win back?

By equipping code review, test generation and documentation, a team can aim for a significant reduction in time spent on repetitive tasks — reinvested in architecture, design and product value.

Reviewing a pull request

Today · done by hand

Prepared by the agent, to approve

Writing the tests for a feature

Today · done by hand

Prepared by the agent, to approve

Writing the documentation for an API

Today · done by hand

Near-instant

Qualitative, non-contractual comparison: the proportions shown illustrate the shift of the work towards review, they represent no measurement. Every output of the agent is reviewed and approved by a competent person.

How it works

The stages of your AI agent project

Audit & scoping

15 minutes to target the use case with the best return.

Quote or direct sign-up

A catalogue offer is bought online; a specific need gets a costed quote.

Design

We design the agent and its guardrails.

Integration & testing

We connect your tools to the agent, which is itself hosted in France.

Rollout

Going live and training your team.

Operation

Continuous supervision and improvement.

Pricing

Three options, one agent

A code generation and review agent (writing, review, tests, docs), installed and operated for you. Choose according to how you work. Prices exclude VAT — annual subscription, the time it takes for the gains to settle in.

This agent is priced with you, not online. We are adjusting its scope at the moment, and online subscription stays closed while we do. Tell us what you need: we will come back to you with a price. Request a quote

See the full price list →

Estimate my gains in 1 minute →

Our commitment

Four guarantees that matter to a technical team

Your code never leaves your premisesLocal inference or an isolated resource hosted in France; no repository or secret entrusted to a foreign third party.

Code in France, under French lawFor your code: hosting under French law, native minimisation, architecture designed to reduce exposure to extraterritorial legislation, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity.

The developer keeps the leadThe agent proposes verifiable code, tests and reviews; no merge and no release is automated.

Human oversight & traceabilityMonitoring and logging frame code generation & review; compliant with the requirements of the AI Act.

Going further

Related resources

AI agents for business →Our full offer Sovereign AI hosted in France →Our confidentiality commitment Code generation & review →Coding, reviewing and testing faster

Frequently asked questions

Your questions, our answers

Does my source code leave my infrastructure?

No. That is the major difference from consumer code assistants. Our agents run on local inference on your own infrastructure, or on an isolated resource hosted in France. Your code, your repositories and your secrets stay with you, with the deployment objective of processing and access operated within the European Union and an architecture designed to reduce exposure to extraterritorial legislation, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity.

Is my code reused to train a model?

No. Your environment is strictly dedicated: your code, your data and your queries are never pooled or used to train a shared model. Your intellectual property stays your intellectual property.

Is the confidentiality of my repositories and my IP guaranteed?

Yes. Access to the repositories is by role (RBAC), read-only and controlled, with encryption in transit and at rest, secrets management and logging. The architecture is designed so that no element of your intellectual property — code, schemas, business logic — is exposed to a third-party service.

Can the agent really generate and review useful code?

Yes, in support. It generates code, reviews your pull requests, spots bugs, vulnerabilities and edge cases, and proposes tests and documentation. The developer moves from repetitive execution to review and decision, much faster and of higher value. No merge and no release is automated.

Do we have to change tools or CI/CD pipeline?

No. The agent connects to your existing ecosystem (Git repository manager, ticketing tool, wiki, CI/CD pipeline) and complements it, without imposing a migration. We adapt the integration to your stack and your languages.

Is this only for large teams or IT departments?

No. The offer suits a startup or a web agency just as well as an IT services firm, a software publisher or an IT department with several teams.

How long does it take to deploy an agent?

A few weeks as a rule, after a free 15-minute audit that identifies the use case with the best return, then a phase of design, integration with your stack and testing before going live and handover to your teams.

Available agents

27 AI agents Blue Lemon Agent deploys for this scope

Technical support & documentation → Tier-1/2 technical helpdesk and documentation kept up to date from the code. Tier-1 technical support assistant (product) → Product knowledge base. HR agent — employee support, onboarding and HR documents → HR base, 1–2 integrations. Advanced technical support agent (diagnosis + fix) → Technical base, actions. Tier-2 customer support agent (diagnosis) → Technical base, escalation. Internal IT support (tier-1 helpdesk) → Tickets, procedures; tier 1. Document agent (FAQ, knowledge base) → RAG on 20–50 docs, 1 language, dialogue in Microsoft Teams, Slack, WhatsApp Business or by email. Tier-1 customer support agent (website) → FAQ chatbot, human escalation, messaging channels included at no extra cost. Web research assistant → Sourced summaries. Document processing agent (OCR, extraction) → OCR + indexing pipeline. Ticket management agent (IT helpdesk) → Categorisation, resolution. Document compliance agent (checking documents) → Rules, checklist. Stock management agent (alerts, restocking) → Stock integration. Multilingual support agent (2–3 languages) → Multiple languages, channels. HR document management agent → Staff files, compliance. Client accounting support agent (practice) → Base, multi-client. Sales steering agent (KPIs, alerts) → CRM, reporting. Business document management agent (large RAG) → 100+ docs, several sources. Multilingual international support agent → Several languages and channels. Legal document agent (litigation) → RAG, deadlines. Sovereign AI document management platform → Massive RAG, governance. Sourced business document search → Regulatory and legal bases, doctrine. Website development → Web pages, components and integrations from your mock-ups and brand guidelines. Mobile app development → Screens, logic and APIs for iOS/Android apps, for your developers to approve. Administrative and documentary support in customs → Strictly in support (administrative). No operational or targeting use. Support for local economic development → Strictly in support (administrative). Financial crime alert casework → Intake of your own monitoring system's alerts, four investigation purposes kept apart, entity matching, chronology, case…

See all 171 catalogue agents and their pricing →

Related industries

Other sectors equipping themselves with sovereign AI agents

Communication agencies →Web, content & creation Business services →Consulting, services & business-to-business Small & very small businesses →Your clients and partners

Let's talk

Let us estimate the potential for your tech teams

15 minutes to identify the use case with the best return — hosted in France, supervised, with no commitment.

Free audit (15 min) → Write to us