Task Management
Cycles, tasks, and daily logs that map to how engineering work is planned
SyncHQ for web development agencies
Dev shops run two calendars at once - the sprint their team works to, and the milestone the client was promised - and most of the pain lives in the gap between them.
The week this is about
Internally you run two-week cycles. The client bought "homepage live by the 20th". Those are different units, and translating between them is somebody's unpaid job every Friday.
Meanwhile the scope boundary keeps moving in ways that do not look like scope changes. The client's marketing lead asks for "just one more field" on a form, which is a schema change, a migration, and a regression somewhere else. It gets done, because it is quicker to do it than to have the conversation, and it never reaches an invoice.
And the hours are the worst part. A developer deep in a problem does not stop to start a timer, so time is reconstructed on Friday from commit history and memory. The reconstruction is always low, and it is always low on the projects that ran hardest.
What changes
01
Cycles for the team, milestones for the client
Time-boxed cycles are how engineering work actually gets planned; milestones are what the client bought. Both live in the same system and reference the same tasks, so the translation happens once instead of every week in a spreadsheet.
02
The timer is on the task, so context comes free
A timer that lives on the work item already knows the project, the client, and whether it is billable. That removes the tagging step that makes developers abandon time tracking, which is the actual reason most dev-shop time data is unreliable.
03
Small requests become visible decisions
Scope with explicit exclusions plus a change process means "one more field" surfaces as a decision with a cost, at the point it is asked, rather than as an invisible extra evening two sprints later.
When this is the wrong tool
If you build product rather than client work - no external client, no billable hours, no invoice - almost none of what makes SyncHQ useful applies. A product team is better served by a dedicated issue tracker.
Questions from web development agencies
Does it integrate with GitHub or Linear?
SyncHQ has no third-party app marketplace - integrations are built in-house, and the set is smaller than a generic PM tool's. If your delivery process depends on a deep two-way sync with an existing issue tracker, check what exists before committing; that is a real constraint and worth surfacing now rather than after migration.
Can developers avoid the admin?
Partly, and it is worth being honest about the limit. Putting the timer on the task removes the tagging and the context-switch, which is most of the friction. It does not remove the need to start it. Any tool claiming zero-effort time tracking for engineers is describing something that does not exist.
Run one real client through it
Three projects and five people on the free plan - enough to take a live client from intake to invoice before you decide anything.
Not quite you?