Marketplace e-commerce · Pricing
Rule-based repricing: a pilot whose contract terms are enforced in code
Competitor prices tracked per SKU, a price computed by rules inside an agreed corridor and applied only after confirmation. Pilot: 10 SKUs, setup within 14 days.
- Status
- Pilot
- Timeline
- 2 weeks by commit history
- Stack
- TypeScript
- NestJS
- React
- PostgreSQL
- Redis / BullMQ
- Puppeteer / Chromium
The task
A home-appliance maker sells on a large marketplace as a third-party seller. Platform promotions and undercutting inside the same product card push the shelf price below target, and checking every offer per SKU by hand is not feasible. The client needed a system that holds the target price or takes the best competitor price within an agreed corridor, never applies it without confirmation, and logs every decision.
What we built
- We built a service that walks the SKU product cards on a schedule and collects every seller’s offer. Collection is gentle: a standard browser, no evasion of platform limits. Stale data is excluded.
- Pricing follows the two contractual scenarios, and the result never leaves the corridor. Every decision is stored with its inputs for audit. The rules are deterministic, with no language models involved.
- No price is applied without confirmation: a decision goes to the external execution service and counts as applied only after an explicit reply. Pricing and execution statuses are shown separately.
- Contract terms are enforced in code: a 10-SKU cap, two scenarios, setup and pilot deadlines. All 8 acceptance criteria are enforced in code; most are also checked by contract tests.
- Production is provisioned: isolated containers, daily backups, preflight checks, rollback, alerts. Launch waits on the client’s input data.
Outcome
- 10 SKUs · 2 scenarios
- pilot scope; the SKU cap and both scenarios are enforced in code and verified by contract tests, so the cap cannot be exceeded
- up to 14 days
- contractual setup window from client inputs to launch, then a 1-month pilot; the service tracks the dates and closes access when the period ends
- 8 of 8
- technical acceptance criteria enforced in code; most are also verified by contract tests and a migration smoke test
- 5 services · 4 networks
- hardened production stack: read-only containers, pinned images, reverse proxy without Docker access
Services
More cases
AI infrastructure · multi-agent systems R&D
Research projectA multi-agent environment where the rules are code
In four days we built and open-sourced (MIT) an agent environment where code enforces the rules: cryptography, a PBFT-style agreement protocol, reproducible experiments.
- same hash
- a repeated run and a replay of the log give a byte-identical final event hash; anyone can check it on the MIT-licensed code
- 187 of 187
- engine tests passing; master branch, commit 625b81d, as of 05.10.2026
Manufacturing · Building materials
MVP in operationPanel specs from CAD drawings in seconds, not hours
Reads DWG/DXF layouts and builds the Excel spec: 10–30 seconds instead of 2–15 hours by hand. All 784 panels of one real project matched the manual spec line by line.
- 784/784 and 189/189
- panels on one project and wall panels on another matched the manual specs line by line, size groups included; area within 0.001 m²
- 2–15 h → 10–30 s
- to produce a project spec: manual work vs app processing, measured on real projects
Marketplace e-commerce · Sales analytics
In productionProfit per SKU across three marketplaces, checked against manual figures
Five seller accounts on WB, Ozon and Yandex Market merged into one SKU-level P&L. Variance from the client’s manual figures on a control SKU for one month: 0.00%.
- 0.00%
- variance vs the client’s manual benchmark across units, revenue, COGS, profit and margin for a control SKU over a month; the threshold was 1%
- 1.18M rows
- of sales across 5 accounts and 12 months processed; 10.7% were ordered and settled in different months
Estimate the payback of a similar process
AVA lets you work out the economics of your process on your own figures, with no form and no price from us. It shows what the manual work costs, what cash effect automation would give and what budget would pay back. If the effect does not even cover running costs, it says so.
Estimate the paybackDiscuss a similar problem
Describe the process and the data you have. Before any work starts we will tell you what can be measured in money, what cannot, and whether it is worth doing.