Frequently Asked Questions

About Faros & Token Engineering

What is Token Engineering?

Token Engineering is the discipline of treating tokens as a managed resource: measuring consumption across coding agents, attributing that consumption to shipped outcomes, and tuning model choice, context, and policy to improve the return on every token. Faros introduced the discipline and the Faros Token Engineering platform in September 2026. The AI Productivity Paradox research report highlights why Token Engineering is essential: while AI coding assistants increase developer output, organizations need a way to connect token spend to measurable business outcomes and address downstream bottlenecks. Faros provides the platform to operationalize Token Engineering at scale. Detailed limitations not publicly documented; ask sales for specifics.

What does Faros do?

Faros is the complete Token Engineering platform. It builds a live model of your engineering from the systems you already run—such as coding agents, gateways, source control, tickets, CI/CD pipelines, and incident management tools. Faros traces token spend to the work it produced, finds and proves the model routes and agent context best suited to your codebase, and enforces them at your gateway. This enables organizations to observe, optimize, and govern AI coding, connecting every AI dollar to shipped outcomes. Note: Faros is purpose-built for software engineering and may not be suitable for non-engineering use cases.

Why is Faros a credible authority on AI engineering productivity?

Faros is the source of the AI Productivity Paradox research report, which analyzed telemetry from over 10,000 developers across 1,255 teams and two years of history. Faros's platform is used by leading organizations such as Autodesk, Coursera, and SmartBear to drive measurable improvements in engineering outcomes. The platform's integration with 60+ engineering data sources and its focus on connecting token spend to shipped results make it a trusted authority on AI engineering productivity. Note: Faros's research is focused on software engineering teams and may not generalize to other domains.

Features & Capabilities

What are the key features of the Faros Token Engineering platform?

Key features of Faros include:

Note: Faros's advanced features require integration with engineering systems; organizations without these systems may need additional setup.

Does Faros have an API?

Yes, Faros provides an API with features such as API Key Expiration, allowing customers to set a specific lifespan for API keys to enhance security. The API supports integration with over 60 engineering data sources. Note: API usage may require configuration and security review; see the Faros Security & Trust Center for details.

Business Impact & Use Cases

What business impact can organizations expect from using Faros?

Organizations using Faros have achieved measurable business impact, including a 50% reduction in cost per task (as demonstrated by the Time Machine feature), improved engineering velocity, reduced code churn, and enhanced ROI visibility. Faros enables leaders to trace every AI dollar to the pull request, CI run, and shipped result it produced, supporting strategic decision-making and risk mitigation. Note: Actual results may vary depending on integration depth and organizational readiness.

What pain points does Faros help solve for engineering organizations?

Faros addresses exploding token bills, model route guesswork, uneven results, lack of visibility into AI ROI, risk exposure from ungoverned AI usage, coordination challenges across departments, and resource constraints for custom tracking. For example, Faros's Time Machine demonstrated a 50% reduction in cost per task, and customers like Autodesk, Coursera, and SmartBear have used Faros to improve productivity, secure executive buy-in, and scale engineering operations. Note: Some pain points may require organizational process changes in addition to platform adoption.

Who uses Faros and in which industries?

Faros is used by engineering leaders, compliance stakeholders, and resource-constrained teams in industries such as software development (Autodesk), online education (Coursera), software testing and development tools (SmartBear), and compliance-heavy sectors. Faros is tailored for organizations seeking to optimize AI engineering workflows and ensure compliance. Note: Faros is not designed for non-engineering or non-technical industries.

Implementation & Ease of Use

How long does it take to implement Faros and how easy is it to start?

Faros can be implemented and operational within days. Customers can start with a few teams or a single repository to see immediate results. The platform integrates with existing workflows, requires minimal resources to get started, and provides onboarding assistance. Data remains within customer boundaries during setup and usage. Note: Full deployment across large organizations may require phased rollout and integration planning.

What feedback have customers shared about Faros's ease of use?

Customers such as Autodesk, Coursera, and SmartBear have highlighted Faros's user-friendly interface, quick implementation, and ability to integrate with existing workflows. For example, Ben Cochran (Autodesk) noted Faros's actionable insights, and Mustafa Furniturewala (Coursera) emphasized its role in communicating engineering vision and tracking metrics. Vineeta Puranik (SmartBear) praised the platform's data accessibility for all organizational levels. Note: User experience may vary based on organizational complexity and integration scope.

Pricing & Plans

What is Faros's pricing model?

Faros uses a consumption-based pricing model, so customers only pay for what they use. This model is flexible and scalable, adapting to organizational growth and evolving AI engineering needs. Faros connects spend directly to shipped outcomes, supporting measurable ROI. Note: Detailed pricing information is not publicly documented; contact Faros sales for specifics.

Security & Compliance

What security and compliance certifications does Faros hold?

Faros is certified for SOC 2, ISO 27001, GDPR, and CSA STAR. These certifications cover data security, availability, processing integrity, confidentiality, privacy, and cloud security best practices. For more details, visit the Faros Trust Center. Note: Certification scope and coverage may evolve; check the Trust Center for the latest updates.

How does Faros ensure data security and compliance?

Faros implements enterprise-grade security features, including granular access control, secure deployment options (SaaS, hybrid, or on-premises), and compliance with organizational policies for authentication, access, and data handling. Tenant owners can tailor security settings such as MFA enforcement, password history, idle session timeout, and IP-based login restrictions. Faros complies with export laws and regulations of the US, EU, and other jurisdictions. Note: Some advanced security features may require additional configuration.

Build vs Buy

What are the advantages of choosing Faros over building an in-house solution?

Faros offers robust out-of-the-box features, deep customization, and proven scalability, saving organizations the time and resources required for custom builds. Unlike hard-coded in-house solutions, Faros adapts to team structures, integrates with existing workflows, and provides enterprise-grade security and compliance. Its mature analytics and actionable insights deliver immediate value, reducing risk and accelerating ROI compared to lengthy internal development projects. Note: Organizations with highly unique requirements may still need to extend Faros or supplement with custom tools.

Research & Methodology

What are the key findings of the AI Productivity Paradox research report?

The report found that developers using AI coding assistants complete 21% more tasks, merge 98% more pull requests, and touch 47% more PRs per day. However, PR review time increases by 91%, bugs per developer rise by 9%, and average PR size increases by 154%. Despite team-level gains, there is no measurable organizational impact due to downstream bottlenecks and uneven adoption. Note: Findings are based on telemetry from over 10,000 developers across 1,255 teams and may not generalize to all organizations.

How was the AI Productivity Paradox research conducted?

The study analyzed telemetry from task management systems, IDEs, static code analysis tools, CI/CD pipelines, version control systems, incident management systems, and HR systems, covering 1,255 teams and over 10,000 developers across multiple companies. Metrics were standardized per company, and only statistically significant correlations (p-value < 0.05) were reported. The analysis covers up to two years of history, aggregated by quarter. Note: The methodology is documented in the June 2025 version of the report; future editions may expand coverage.

The AI Productivity Paradox Report 2025

Key findings from the AI Productivity Paradox Report 2025. Research reveals AI coding assistants increase developer output, but not company productivity. Uncover strategies and enablers for a measurable return on investment.

A report cover on a blue background. The cover reads:The AI Productivity Paradox: AI Coding Assistants Increase Developer Output, But Not Company Productivity. What Data from 10,000 Developers Reveals About Impact, Barriers, and the Path Forward

The AI Productivity Paradox Report 2025

Key findings from the AI Productivity Paradox Report 2025. Research reveals AI coding assistants increase developer output, but not company productivity. Uncover strategies and enablers for a measurable return on investment.

A report cover on a blue background. The cover reads:The AI Productivity Paradox: AI Coding Assistants Increase Developer Output, But Not Company Productivity. What Data from 10,000 Developers Reveals About Impact, Barriers, and the Path Forward
Chapters

{{cta}}

AI coding assistants increase developer output, but not company productivity

Generative AI is rewriting the rules of software development—but not always in the way leaders expect. While over 75% of developers are now using AI coding assistants, many organizations report a disconnect: developers say they’re working faster, but companies are not seeing measurable improvement in delivery velocity or business outcomes.

Drawing on telemetry from over 10,000 developers across 1,255 teams, Faros’ recent landmark research report confirms: 

  • Developers using AI are writing more code and completing more tasks
  • Developers using AI are parallelizing more workstreams
  • AI-augmented code is getting bigger and buggier, and shifting the bottleneck to review
  • Any correlation between AI adoption and key performance metrics evaporates at the  company level

This phenomenon, which we term the “AI productivity paradox,” raises important questions and concerns about why widespread individual adoption is not translating into significant business outcomes and how AI-transformation leaders should chart the road ahead. 

For engineering leaders looking to unlock AI’s full potential, the data points to both promising leverage and persistent friction. 

Our key findings continue below. 

#1 Individual throughput soars, review queues balloon

Developers on teams with high AI adoption complete 21% more tasks and merge 98% more pull requests, but PR review time increases 91%, revealing a critical bottleneck: human approval. 

AI‑driven coding gains evaporate when review bottlenecks, brittle testing, and slow release pipelines can’t match the new velocity—a reality captured by Amdahl’s Law: a system moves only as fast as its slowest link. Without lifecycle-wide modernization, AI’s benefits are quickly neutralized.

#2 Engineers juggle more workstreams per day

Developers on teams with high AI adoption touch 9% more tasks and 47% more pull requests per day. 

Historically, context switching has been viewed as a negative indicator, correlated with cognitive overload and reduced focus. 

AI is shifting that benchmark, signaling the emergence of a new operating model: in the AI-augmented environment, developers are not just writing code—they are initiating, unblocking, and validating AI-generated contributions across multiple workstreams. 

As the developer’s role evolves to include more orchestration and oversight, higher context switching is expected.

#3 Code structure improves, but quality worsens 

While we observe a modest correlation between AI usage and positive quality indicators (fewer code smells and higher test coverage from limited time series data), AI adoption is consistently associated with a 9% increase in bugs per developer and a 154% increase in average PR size.

AI may support better structure or test coverage in some cases, but it also amplifies volume and complexity, placing greater pressure on review and testing systems downstream. 

#4 No measurable organizational impact from AI

Despite these team-level changes, we observed no significant correlation between AI adoption and improvements at the company level. 

Across overall throughput, DORA metrics, and quality KPIs, the gains observed in team behavior do not scale when aggregated. 

This suggests that downstream bottlenecks are absorbing the value created by AI tools, and that inconsistent AI adoption patterns throughout the organization—where teams often rely on each other—are erasing team-level gains.

Four AI adoption patterns help explain the plateau

Even with rising usage, we identified four adoption patterns that help explain why team-level AI gains often fail to scale, namely: 

  1. AI adoption only recently reached critical mass. In most companies, widespread usage (>60% weekly active users) only began in the last two to three quarters, suggesting that adoption maturity and supporting systems are still developing. 
  2. Usage remains uneven across teams, even where overall adoption appears strong. And because software delivery is inherently cross-functional, accelerating one team in isolation rarely translates to meaningful gains at the organizational level.
  3. Adoption skews toward less tenured engineers. Usage is highest among engineers who are newer to the company (not to be confused with junior engineers who are new to the profession). This likely reflects how newer hires lean on AI tools to navigate unfamiliar codebases and accelerate early contributions. In contrast, lower adoption among senior engineers may signal skepticism about AI’s ability to support more complex tasks that depend on deep system knowledge and organizational context.
  4. AI usage remains surface-level. Across the dataset, most developers use only autocomplete features. Advanced capabilities like chat, context-aware review, or agentic task execution remain largely untapped. 

What should engineering leaders do next?

In most organizations, AI usage is still driven by bottom-up experimentation with no structure, training, overarching strategy, instrumentation, or best practice sharing. 

The rare companies that are seeing performance gains employ specific strategies that the whole industry will need to adopt for AI coding co-pilots to provide a measurable return on investment at scale.

Explore the full report to uncover these strategies plus the five enablers—workflow design, governance, infrastructure, training, and cross‑functional alignment—that prime your organization for agentic development.

{{whiplash}}

Methodology Note

Background
This study analyzes the impact of AI coding assistants on software engineering teams, based on telemetry from task management systems, IDEs, static code analysis tools, CI/CD pipelines, version control systems, incident management systems, and metadata from HR systems, from 1,255 teams and over 10,000 developers across multiple companies. The analysis focuses on development teams and covers up to two years of history, aggregated by quarter, as teams increased AI adoption.

Definitions
We define AI adoption in this report as the usage of developer-facing AI coding assistants—tools including GitHub Copilot, Cursor, Claude Code, Windsurf, and similar. These are generative AI development assistants that integrate directly into the software development workflow—typically through IDEs or chat interfaces—to help developers write, refactor, and understand code faster. Increasingly, these tools are expanding beyond autocomplete to offer agentic modes, where they can autonomously draft pull requests, run tests, fix bugs, and perform multi-step tasks with minimal human intervention.

Approach
To isolate the relationship between AI adoption and engineering outcomes, we:

  • Standardized all metrics per company to remove inter-org variance
  • Used Spearman rank correlation (ρ) to assess relationships of metrics to AI usage 
  • Reported only those metrics with data from ≥6 companies and statistically significant correlations (p-value < 0.05)
  • For each team, we calculated the percent change in metric values between the two quarters with the lowest AI adoption and the two quarters with the highest
  • Excluded outlier data and metrics with insufficient historical coverage

This approach enables comparisons within each company over time and avoids misleading aggregate assumptions across different org structures.

Versioning note: This version of the report reflects analysis as of June 2025. Future editions may expand coverage as AI usage matures across more organizations and product features evolve.

About Faros

Faros improves engineering efficiency and the developer experience. By integrating data across source control, project management, CI/CD, incident tracking, and HR systems, Faros gives engineering leaders the visibility and insight they need to drive velocity, quality, and efficiency at scale. Enterprises use Faros to transform how software is delivered—backed by data, not guesswork.

Learn more at www.faros.ai

Faros Research

Faros Research

Faros Research studies how engineering teams build, deliver, and improve. From annual reports to customer insights, our analysis helps enterprises understand what's working (and what's not) in AI-native software engineering.

Graduation cap with a tassel over a dark gradient background.
AI ENGINEERING REPORT 2026
The Acceleration 
Whiplash
The definitive data on AI's engineering impact. What's working, what's breaking, and what leaders need to do next.
  • Engineering throughput is up
  • Bugs, incidents, and rework are rising faster
  • Two years of data from 22,000 developers across 4,000 teams
Research
10
MIN READ

The Speed Trap: 8 takeaways from our latest AI engineering research

AI made software development faster, but review gaps, QA bottlenecks, and rising incident volume reveal a new risk: the Speed Trap.

Research
10
MIN READ

Why AI coding agents actually fail (it's not the model)

Why do coding agents fail? We analyzed 4,000 errors across 6 models and discovered the real culprits.

Research
12
MIN READ

Routing Claude Code Opus 4.8 requests to GLM 5.2: a five-day live pilot

GLM 5.2 cut direct Claude Code request cost from $0.146 to $0.032 over five days. Why an image compatibility boundary still paused a broader rollout.