Marketplace e-commerce · Pricing

Repricing without manual price control: a contract-guaranteed pilot

Competitor prices tracked per SKU on the marketplace, a price computed inside an agreed corridor, applied only after confirmation. Pilot: 10 SKUs, setup within 14 days.

Status
Pilot
Timeline
3–4 weeks (estimate; 2 weeks in git)
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

Outcome

10 SKUs · 2 scenarios
pilot scope; the SKU cap and both scenarios are enforced in code and verified by contract tests — 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

More cases

AI infrastructure / multi-agent systems R&D

Research project

A multi-agent environment where rules are code, not prompts

In four days we built and open-sourced (MIT) an agent environment where constraints are enforced in code: cryptography, Byzantine consensus, reproducible experiments.

64 × 10,000
agents × ticks in the reference experiment: 131,372 events, zero invariant violations; sha256 attestation independently verified
up to 3.9×
faster policy tick on the reference load (1,126.7 → 286.5 ms) with bit-identical hashes; measured with the committed profiling script

Manufacturing · Building materials

MVP in operation

Panel 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 production

One profit per SKU across three marketplaces, reconciled to 0.00%

Five seller accounts on WB, Ozon and Yandex Market merged into one SKU-level P&L: 0.00% variance vs the client's manual benchmark, forecast 2.7× more accurate than naive.

0.00%
variance vs the client's manual benchmark across units, revenue, COGS, profit and margin for a control SKU over a month; threshold was 1%
2.7×
more accurate than naive: weekly WAPE on SKUs driving 80% of revenue, 29.6% vs 81.4%. The 25% goal is open: history covers 66.9% of SKUs

Estimate the impact on your own figures

AVA is a process-economics calculator. In a couple of minutes it shows whether a similar task pays off in your case — before any call and with no commitment.

Estimate the impact with AVA

Have a similar task?

Describe the process and the data you have. We will tell you what can be measured in money and what cannot — before any work starts.

or email us directly: hello@xteam.pro

or email us directly: hello@xteam.pro