Shafan Khan

6.8K posts

Shafan Khan

Shafan Khan

@ShafanKhan_

CEO & Co-Founder @trySquadHQ | Ex- @Middesk, @Bloomberg, @Deloitte

Katılım Temmuz 2013
599 Takip Edilen485 Takipçiler
Shafan Khan retweetledi
danialhasan
danialhasan@dhasandev·
i think i just reinvented GEPA from first principals
English
1
1
8
819
Shafan Khan retweetledi
Sid
Sid@sid_srk·
No better way to speedrun realizing your shortcomings than starting a company
English
3
5
95
3.4K
Matan Grinberg
Matan Grinberg@matanSF·
Factory has acquired Lumetric (YC W24). Together, we are deepening our investment in autonomous systems that execute longer-horizon work and self-improve over time. The Lumetric team will be joining Factory and will focus on accelerating the Factory Desktop experience.
Matan Grinberg tweet media
English
23
12
227
44.9K
Shafan Khan retweetledi
danialhasan
danialhasan@dhasandev·
this discovery call was insane. spec driven development systems are nothing new, but doing them while maintaining the right abstractions + architecture are an unsolved problem. software factories in general have this problem. Add multiple humans to the mix and it gets messy. but rewriting parts of the entire codebase when specs change isntead of just editing them is a very different paradigm to the past, and i love it.
Shafan Khan@ShafanKhan_

A former NVIDIA engineer signed up for our waitlist. 25 minutes later, he changed how we think about engineering with AI. We’ve been building Squad by staying close to the people we’re building for. Most user calls teach you something. Some teach you a disproportionate amount. This was one of them. We were talking about how to create better specs for agents. A spec is the clear plan: what to build, why it matters, what constraints exist, and what “done” means. His answer was simple: Sometimes, to build the future, you have to look to the past. Then he pointed us to a book: *Mastering the Requirements Process.* The lesson was not “write more docs.” It was that agents don’t need more prompts. They need better instructions, boundaries, and feedback. Right now, a lot of AI development feels like brute force: More tokens. More compute. More agents. But great engineering teams don’t run on brute force. They run on clear goals, shared context, standards, reviews, and tests. Agents need the same structure. The problem is that a lot of work depends on context that was never written down. The thing someone said in a meeting. The tradeoff buried in a Slack thread. The reason a decision was made. The edge case everyone assumes is obvious. Humans can sometimes fill in those gaps. Agents usually can’t. If the context is missing, they guess. If the goal is vague, they optimize for the wrong thing. If “done” is unclear, they stop too early or keep going too long. The clearer the spec, the better the output. That connected directly to what we’re building with Squad. The value is not “AI writes code.” The value is turning messy human intent into work agents can execute and humans can review. The strongest validation? He had already built a version of this internally. Docs to specs. Specs to agents. Agents to tested work. But it was hacked together across tools. His point was simple: “I’d rather pay for a productized version of this than maintain our internal one.” That is why we keep having these conversations. You learn what is noise. You learn what is real. You learn which parts of your idea matter more than you realized. As AI gets better, do we need less process or better process?

English
0
1
10
667
Shafan Khan
Shafan Khan@ShafanKhan_·
A former NVIDIA engineer signed up for our waitlist. 25 minutes later, he changed how we think about engineering with AI. We’ve been building Squad by staying close to the people we’re building for. Most user calls teach you something. Some teach you a disproportionate amount. This was one of them. We were talking about how to create better specs for agents. A spec is the clear plan: what to build, why it matters, what constraints exist, and what “done” means. His answer was simple: Sometimes, to build the future, you have to look to the past. Then he pointed us to a book: *Mastering the Requirements Process.* The lesson was not “write more docs.” It was that agents don’t need more prompts. They need better instructions, boundaries, and feedback. Right now, a lot of AI development feels like brute force: More tokens. More compute. More agents. But great engineering teams don’t run on brute force. They run on clear goals, shared context, standards, reviews, and tests. Agents need the same structure. The problem is that a lot of work depends on context that was never written down. The thing someone said in a meeting. The tradeoff buried in a Slack thread. The reason a decision was made. The edge case everyone assumes is obvious. Humans can sometimes fill in those gaps. Agents usually can’t. If the context is missing, they guess. If the goal is vague, they optimize for the wrong thing. If “done” is unclear, they stop too early or keep going too long. The clearer the spec, the better the output. That connected directly to what we’re building with Squad. The value is not “AI writes code.” The value is turning messy human intent into work agents can execute and humans can review. The strongest validation? He had already built a version of this internally. Docs to specs. Specs to agents. Agents to tested work. But it was hacked together across tools. His point was simple: “I’d rather pay for a productized version of this than maintain our internal one.” That is why we keep having these conversations. You learn what is noise. You learn what is real. You learn which parts of your idea matter more than you realized. As AI gets better, do we need less process or better process?
English
0
0
7
766
Shafan Khan
Shafan Khan@ShafanKhan_·
@giyu_codes thanks for the clarification and makes complete sense.
English
0
0
1
38
giyu_codes
giyu_codes@giyu_codes·
Each AI agent was a result of three parts: - the process we discovered from looking at the data. This was a timeline representation of events and they were broken down further, so we can see what would happen at each step and what type of assets were involved. For onboarding it would be something like: "we have this set of guaranteed documents, images, and information that we need to obtain". It would get more complicated the deeper we went into the client lifecycle. - the eval system that we built that would extract the data from any given data source for the workflow it was a part of and reassociate itself to the workflow, or many workflows, to start connecting the edges of where the data would be needed. For example, the insurance policy number would be a reoccurring data point across the full life cycle, so imagine one node and many edges that point back to the workflow nodes. I gamified this part and the employees would be given a UI that would allow them verify, add, or correct any connections from the data and workflow. We would use these evaluations to determine what data was important for each stage and it would reveal the timeline of each workflow, what happened next, what dependencies were needed to get to certain workflows, and more. - the "closed loop" part of this was implemented in the live system too, so we would update our recommendation system based on the inputs of our best performing employees. The desired outcome was always finding which workflows would turn into agents and what decisions would be presented to the employee for inputs.
English
1
0
3
207
Shafan Khan retweetledi
danialhasan
danialhasan@dhasandev·
Has anyone shared their experience trying an off-the-shelf software factory vs implementing their own? How has it affected their shipping velocity next to engineering quality?
English
1
1
2
243
Shafan Khan retweetledi
danialhasan
danialhasan@dhasandev·
most companies are operationally messy as hell, and that's why agent deployments fail some roles become kitchen sinks where one persons tribal knowledge ties together 10-20 undocumented yet automatable workflows and they end up overworked + underleveraged
danialhasan tweet media
English
0
1
4
127
cogsec
cogsec@affaan·
corner office supremacy
cogsec tweet media
English
6
0
66
6.1K