Automation & Integration Engineering. Built for the inputs you actually receive.

Work arrives on WhatsApp, in email, in a form, in a chat, and then someone has to move it by hand. I make those channels behave like one system, with a record of what arrived and what happened to it.

That means the integration work, the custom logic between the tools, the migration of whatever history already exists, and the layer underneath that notices when any of it stops.

A sync kept rewriting the same 25 or so rows every run until it hit the spreadsheet API write limit. The root cause was a single leading space that broke the change hash, so every row looked modified. The fix was to trim before hashing and then write only real changes.

The cause was upstream, in how change was detected. Turning the write rate down would have hidden it for another month.

Leads arrive on a form, in an ad platform, in the inbox, in WhatsApp, and occasionally on somebody’s phone at an event. The expensive failure is almost never the lead. It is the twenty minutes between it arriving and anybody knowing it did, and then the second record for the same person because nobody checked whether there was a first one.

What that needs is the machinery already on this page pointed at a different kind of record: capture from every channel, deduplication before a new record exists, qualification by rule where a rule is reliable, enrichment with the source of each field recorded, an owner and a timestamp on every handoff, and an alert when something has been sitting untouched.

The CRM at the end of it is HubSpot about as often as it is one somebody built themselves and reaches over its own API, and the pipeline is designed against whichever you actually have rather than around a product I would prefer you bought.

What it is not is a list-building service. No scraping, no bought contact databases and no third-party lead brokers. Every lead it handles is one your own business collected, from a channel you run. Lead capture, routing and enrichment, in full.

I build in whichever of these fits the problem, and the choice comes after the process is mapped rather than before. What decides it is not the feature list. It is who gets alerted when a run fails, whether the run can be replayed, whether you can see what happened and why, where the credentials live, and whether you can move if the pricing changes at your volume.

A tool being on this list is not an argument for using it. The smallest thing that survives your real inputs is the right answer, and sometimes that is one step in the simplest tool here rather than anything I would need to build.

Most first projects fall between a two-week scoped build and a two-month one. The number is fixed against a written scope after a discovery call, so you approve it before anything is built. What moves it inside that range, in full.