Real-time FinOps for AI development

Know what your AI built, and what it cost.

AIMS attributes AI spend to the project and feature being built, enforces budgets before tokens are spent, and is being built to verify that the work matches the story it was charged to.

Book a demo See how it works
Cross-vendor SDLC-native Client-owned accounts
aims · acme consulting
Spend overviewWhat your AI work cost this month
Last 30 days⌄
Attributed spend£128,490↓ 8.2% vs last month
Billable to clients£112,30087% of total spend
Stories over budget3Gated at source
Spend over time
01 Jun15 Jun30 Jun
Active stories
checkout-redesign
Northwind · £4,210
✓ Match
refund-flow
Northwind · £2,680
✓ Match
kyc-checks
Meridian · £5,940
! Scope
Attribution status: 96% of spend attributedView evidence →
Choose active workNorthwind · Payments
checkout-redesign Active ✓
refund-flow Ready
kyc-checks Ready
Govern before spendcheckout-redesign
Story budget£5,000
Model accessGPT-4.1
Block requests at 100% On
Developer workflowStart governed session
$ aims run --story checkout-redesign
✓ Scoped key issued · expires in 4h
Models: gpt-4.1, claude-sonnet
Budget remaining: £790
Automatic attributionEvery request reaches the right story
VS Code→Gateway→GPT-4.1
checkout-redesign + £0.42
Proof, not tags · on the roadmapCompare claimed work with the diff
checkout-redesign
payments/* · ui/checkout/*✓ Match
kyc-checks
auth/session/* · out of scope! Review
1 · Select the work being built — AIMS connects every request to an active story.
Cross-vendorSDLC-nativeShort-lived keysClient-owned accountsFeature-level attribution
The problem

Your AI coding bill has stopped being a rounding error.

For a growing number of teams, AI coding spend now rivals headcount. It climbs as agents run longer, in parallel, over bigger context — yet the person signing for it still cannot say what any of it bought.

Subscriptions hide the signal. Per-developer dashboards answer “who spent it” and stay silent on “what for”.

“who spent it”“what it built”
That is not a reporting gap. It is a governance gap.
What AIMS is

Attribution at the unit that actually matters.

AIMS allocates token cost to the sprint story, enforces a budget per story, and is being built to verify the work produced matches the story it was billed to. FinOps for the software you build, not the software you run.

Feature-level attribution

Every other tool stops at team, user, project or cost centre. AIMS attributes to the backlog item wired into your SDLC.

Budgets with teeth

Each story carries a budget. Exceed it and model access is gated at source before the tokens are spent.

Proof, not just tags

Next: reconciling the claimed allocation against the diff, files touched and branch, so mismatches surface.

Right model, right story

Model choice becomes a per-story decision with a cost attached, so frontier capability earns its place.

See the evidence
Proof, not tags

The work checks the timesheet.

A budget you can game is not a control. AIMS is being built to reconcile claimed allocation against observed work — the diff, the files touched, the branch — before it reaches an invoice.

Attribution, budgets and enforcement are live today. Scope reconciliation is in design with our first delivery partners.

Talk to us about early access
Evidence Control Tower
Claimed allocation reconciled against observed work before billing.
On the roadmap
AllocationObserved workResult
checkout-redesignNorthwind → Payments · £4,210
payments/*
ui/checkout/*
✓ Match
refund-flowNorthwind → Payments · £2,680
payments/refund/*
ui/refunds/*
✓ Match
kyc-checksMeridian → Onboarding · £5,940
auth/session/*
out of scope
! ReviewCaught before invoice
Illustrative. Hover or select a row to see how AIMS will check it.
Decisions shownExample data
Mismatch rateIllustrative
Financial impact£4,210 billable confirmed
A story, end to end

Make the cost of a feature legible.

From authorised story to observed change, every part of delivery has a place in the record.

Northwind · Payments

checkout-redesign

The project view a delivery lead can use to explain spend, protect budget and bill with confidence.

See how AIMS attributes spend
StatusOn track
Scope matchConfirmed ✓
AI spend£4,210
Story budget£5,000
Budget used0% of £5,000
Models usedGPT-4.1 · Claude
Files touched14 files
For consultancies

AIMS changes consultancy economics.

Bill the work you did, protect the margin you quoted, and run development against the client's own model accounts.

01 · Client delivery

Chargeback that stands up to audit.

Bill AI development at feature level, with proof of what each token produced.

  • Evidence for every story
  • Client-owned providers and liability
  • Cross-vendor reporting in one view
02 · Fixed-price work

Fixed-price margin protection.

Learn what an AI-assisted story of a given shape actually costs, and quote from evidence instead of guesswork.

  • Budgets enforced before overruns
  • Scope mismatches surfaced early
  • Stop absorbing overruns you never saw coming
03 · Client tenancy

Compliance and cost off your books.

Onboard the client's own models. Development runs against their tenancy: their code, their token bill, their liability.

  • Client-owned model accounts
  • Provider liability stays where it belongs
  • Clearer compliance boundaries
See how AIMS works for consultancies
Why AIMS, not the alternatives

Better reporting is coming. Governance is not.

They give youAIMS gives you
Spend by team, user or cost centre
Spend by feature, tied to your backlog
A tag that says money was spent
Spend tied to the story on your board
A bill you reconcile after the fact
A budget enforced before the spend happens
Attribution inside one vendor's ecosystem
Attribution across your clients' own providers
See the full product comparison
For internal engineering

Spend by feature, not by person.

Govern spend across teams, stop allowance leakage and make model-cost optimisation a deliberate choice.

Governed spend See spend across offshore, outsourced and in-house teams.
Less leakage Bring unsanctioned work into view before it becomes a surprise.
Model optimisation Choose capability where it earns its place.
Decision-ready insight Give engineering leaders a clear view of authorised AI work.
See the product in detail
Developer clients

Governed access, in the tools they already use.

Developers keep their workflow. AIMS runs in the editor, CLI, and Copilot with entitled models, zero key handling, and per-request attribution.

No long-lived provider keys on developer machines.

VS Code extension

Entitled models appear in the native chat picker under "Synapx AIMS", with quota tracked live and attribution stamped on every request.

GitHub Copilot BYOK

AIMS mirrors entitled models into Copilot's custom-endpoint list and rotates the short-lived key, so no static key ever sits on disk.

CLI

One command launches GitHub Copilot CLI, OpenAI Codex CLI or Claude Code wired to the gateway, with the key passed only through the environment.

See how governed access works
Built for governed development

One broker. Central control.

Provider credentials stay protected while developers work in the tools they already use.

Short-lived scoped keysCredentials are limited to the project and models a user is entitled to use.
Central revocationRevoke access at source instead of waiting for a long-lived key to expire.
Provider keys protectedRaw provider credentials never sit on a developer machine.
Tenant isolationUsage and access remain separated across organisations and projects.
See the full security model
Simple to start

Start with governed spend. Scale with evidence.

AIMS starts with the controls teams need first: short-lived access, feature-level attribution, project entitlements and budgets that can be enforced before spend occurs.

View Pricing
Objections, answered

The hard questions, up front.

Isn't this just timesheeting for AI?

It's timesheeting the developer never fills in. Allocation comes from the board and rides in the credential, so nothing is typed and nothing is remembered. Checking that claim against the diff is what we're building next.

Won't developers mis-charge to whichever story has budget left?

The story is pre-selected from the active branch and the budget is enforced per story, so mis-charging takes deliberate effort and shows up in someone else's numbers. The scope check being built on top of this closes the gap entirely.

AI is getting cheaper anyway, so why govern it?

Capability per pound is falling, but the frontier models you actually use are flat to more expensive while consumption rises. Your bill is going up.

Can't our model vendor do this natively?

Only per developer, and only inside their own walls. Cross-vendor, SDLC-native, consultancy-ready attribution on your client's own accounts is not their business.

Know what your AI built, and what it cost.

See how AIMS turns AI development spend into evidence you can govern, explain and bill.

Book a demo Register interest
Cross-vendorSDLC-nativeClient-owned accounts