We started Source Trace with a developer’s question: which models are best at coding? Six months on, that’s the same question a founder or CTO asks at renewal time, except now there’s an invoice attached to it.
On a small team the person writing the code and the person paying for the tools is often the same person, or sitting one desk over. Seat licences and token spend stopped being rounding errors a while ago, and “the team says it helps” doesn’t settle whether to renew. Today we’re bringing Source Trace to teams. The pitch: stop judging AI by what it costs, start judging it by what survives.
The team view rolls the same metric across everyone, broken out per tool, per model, per person, and per repo, on the passive attribution that’s run since day one. There’s no surveillance angle here, and we’re firm on that. It’s a signal about which tools earn their keep, not a way to rank your engineers, and the dashboard is built so it can’t be read as a scoreboard.
What to look at before you renew
Start with adoption: how many people actually went from “installed it” to shipping AI code regularly, because a seat nobody touches is just cost. Then survival rate per tool, which lets you put two assistants at the same price side by side and compare them on the code that’s still there a week later. And excess rework, the gap between how much AI code gets thrown away and how much hand-written code does in the same repo. That last one is the closest thing we have to a number on the cleanup nobody logs.
A worked example. A six-person team pays for two assistants. Tool A: 80% adoption, 78% survival, two points of excess rework. Tool B: 30% adoption, 50% survival, fifteen points of excess rework. The two invoices look about the same. The survival data says A is doing the job and B is mostly making work to undo. That’s a renewal you can argue with evidence instead of a hunch in standup.
Want to see your team’s coding dashboard and which AI models are worth keeping? The team plan is how to start. We’re not affiliated with any model providers.