You didn’t set out to build an AI platform. You’re maintaining one anyway.

You wired the MCP servers up by hand. You wrote the glue between the tracker and the docs and the repo. Everyone has their own prompt file and someone keeps the good one. It works, mostly, and you built it, which is exactly why this is a hard thing to walk away from. So let’s be specific about what you would actually be giving up, and what you would not.

The plumbing was never the product

Nobody has ever bought anything from you because your agent can reach your tracker. Every hour in that layer is an hour not spent on the thing your team is actually judged on - and the layer is not a project with an end date. It is a subscription you pay in attention.

It is also never finished. A new model ships with a different tool-calling shape. A vendor changes an API and something quietly stops syncing for a week before anyone notices. Someone leaves and the prompt file that made their agent good leaves with them. Every tool grows its own assistant, and every one of those can see exactly one tool, so you stay the integration between them.

It isn’t just you. In Stack Overflow’s 2025 survey, 84% of developers are using or planning to use AI tools, and the single biggest frustration, at 66%, is output that is “almost right, but not quite”. That is what it looks like when a capable model reasons from a third of the facts, because the other two thirds live in a system nobody gave it.

The hard part was never getting a model to do the work. It is getting it the context, and keeping it there while everything underneath keeps moving.

What you would stop doing

We think a person gets back 18–34 hours a week, and we publish the whole breakdown bar by bar on the home page so you can argue with it. It is our estimate rather than a measurement, and it is a range because it depends heavily on how hard you lean on agents.

Look at where it comes from and you will recognise your own week. Stitching tools together so an agent can reach them, which is the largest line by some distance. Re-explaining the project to something that was in the room yesterday. Writing and dragging tickets. Chasing status. Two agents building the same thing because neither could see the other. Rework, when a decision nobody could find gets contradicted and it surfaces a day later in review.

None of that gets faster. It stops existing, because the workspace is the integration surface. One place holds the chat, the tickets, the decisions, the docs and the repo’s recent commits, and everything that reads it reads all of it. There is no context assembly to own, because context assembly is the product.

You don’t give up your agents

This is the objection we hear most, and the answer is that we aren’t asking. The Claude Code, Cursor or Codex you already run keeps running, on your machine, on your own plan. One line in the repo connects it to the workspace over MCP, and from then on it reads the board, moves tickets and answers teammates from the terminal. It shows up live in the sidebar while it works, and an agent about to start on a ticket is told when someone else’s is already on it.

It costs no Decisive credits, because it is your subscription doing the work. It is free on every plan including the free one, and so is the rest of the multiplayer side. We are not trying to replace the agent you like. We are trying to stop you writing the wiring for it.

The same goes for how your agents behave. A skill is a plain SKILL.md in your repository - how your team does migrations, what your review bar is, the deploy order nobody remembers. Agents load one when the work calls for it, and when an agent works something out the hard way it does not quietly rewrite its own instructions: it opens a pull request, and nothing changes until someone merges it.

You don’t get locked in

You have been burned before, so here it is plainly, including the parts that aren’t clean.

Whatever a coding agent produces arrives as a pull request on your repository, on its own branch, and nothing reaches your default branch that you did not merge. Skills are files in your repo. Both are yours in the only sense that matters: they are already where your code lives, and they stay there if you leave tomorrow.

The workspace exports as one zip from Settings - every task, discussion, page, message and comment as structured data, plus the same content as readable markdown. Any plan, any time, as often as you like, with no request form and no call. It leaves out uploaded file binaries and credentials, and we would rather say so here than let you discover it.

The honest exception is Apps. An app’s code lives in Decisive rather than in your repo, and that is precisely what buys you the part below: no branch, no pipeline, no review step to change it. Every turn saves a numbered version you can roll back to and the whole thing exports as a zip whenever you want, but it is not sitting in your monorepo the way a pull request is. If that trade is wrong for a particular tool, build that one the way you always have.

The internal tools you were going to get to

You know the list. The dashboard someone asked for twice. The rota still living in a spreadsheet. The little tracker that would take a weekend - plus a repo, plus a pipeline, plus somewhere to run it, plus a database, plus an API key and a budget so it can call a model, plus the integration to give it your team’s data. That is why it never gets built, and it is why you end up paying a vendor for a worse version of it.

Describe it instead and it exists: hosted on its own address, with a database when what you asked for needs one. It reads your team’s tasks, docs, chat and members already, and it asks your own agents rather than a key you had to go and provision. Change it by saying what is different, in the same thread. Every plan builds one; the paid plan lifts the limit.

It is the newest part of Decisive and the part that changes fastest, and we would rather tell you that here than have you find out.

The months you already spent aren’t the question

That is the sharpest version of the hesitation and it deserves a straight answer. Those months are spent either way. They also bought you something real: you now know exactly what an agent needs in order to be useful, which is knowledge most teams evaluating this don’t have.

The only live question is what the next year costs. If the answer is another year of maintaining an integration layer that a vendor’s API change can break on a Wednesday, that is a choice worth making deliberately rather than by default. None of it gets easier as the models improve - it gets harder, because there is more surface to keep current.

Keep the judgment you built. Drop the glue you have to keep re-gluing.

Try it the way you’d test anything

Don’t migrate. Point it at one repository, connect the agent you already run, and give it a week of real work. You will know quickly whether an agent that can see the whole workspace answers differently from one that can see a folder - and that is the entire thing we are claiming.

It is live and free for a full team of ten, with no card, no access request and no call to sit through. If you want your history in there, the import reads whatever you paste or upload and proposes a plan you confirm before anything is written. And the way out is the same zip it always was.

We think the teams that win the next few years are the ones that stopped building the plumbing and went back to building the product. That is the whole bet, and it is why we built this instead of another assistant you would have to wire up yourself.