Sander Muller

It's a very sunny and hot weekend here 🥵 But I've got new badges to show off, including a surprise one I wanted to try that's not for your packages but for you! There's now a badge you can put on your GitHub Profile README.md that shows off how many contributions you've made to the core Laravel packages. Don't worry, my next badge is going to be showing off the little pink alien 😂

@aarondfrancis The Offspring growing up

Last day of school block party. The kids are alright

@mattpocockuk I have some skills that use other skills in a multi step way, very powerful. Though maybe it should be a command instead of skills then

Skills should be: - Concise - Responsible for one thing, not multi-step - Composable - Progressively disclosed - Harness-agnostic What else? Or - what did I get wrong?

@PovilasKorop Its tough, because a lot of vulnerabilities are also fixed by updating dependencies

With new security incident(s), we PHP/Laravel devs probably should stop running `composer update` blindly, trusting the latest versions. Modern apps are mostly DEPENDENCIES. Security is no longer just about your code, SQL injections or XSS attacks on your website. So, for packages, probably lock SPECIFIC versions. Probably do not install anything "too fresh". Consider NOT using external packages when possible/logical. I'm currently writing a much longer tutorial with security recommendations, possibly will even turn it into a course.

@spencerjogden @SnazzyLabs You can store your passkey in 1Password, that's what I do

@SnazzyLabs Just feel like every time I’ve set them up, some wire gets crossed. I’m on a different device, or it’s the app vs the webpage. Dunno. 🤷‍♂️ maybe I’ve just run into crappy implementations. The gain over a well implemented login flow seems very minimal.

And most web devs don’t either. It pisses me off when Passkeys are used either as 2FA and/or in addition to keeping a traditional username/password WHICH DEFEATS THE ENTIRE POINT.

@DJ_CURFEW What about the QA bottleneck, testing all the delivered work (on staging/acceptance) before it goes live

Today we reduced headcount by 22%. The business is the strongest it's ever been. So I think it's important to be direct about what I'm seeing and why. First, I made this decision and I own it. I did it because the way to operate at the highest level of productivity is changing, and to win the future, ClickUp needs to change with it. Second, this wasn't about cutting costs. Most savings from this change will flow directly back into the people who stay. We'll be introducing million-dollar salary bands. If you create outsized impact using AI, you'll be paid outside of traditional bands. Most importantly, I have the deepest gratitude for those affected. We're doing this from a position of strength specifically so we can take care of people properly. Everyone affected receives a package aimed at honoring their contributions and easing the transition. I only see two options: wait for this to play out gradually in the market or be honest about what I'm seeing and act proactively. THE 100X ORGANIZATION The primary change is that we're restructuring around what I call 100x org. The goal is 100x output. The roles required to build at the highest level are fundamentally different than they were a year ago. Incremental improvements to existing systems won't get us there. We need new ones. That means creating enough disruption to rebuild rather than iterate on what's already broken. The common narrative is that AI makes everyone more productive. It doesn't. Many of the workflows of today, if left unchanged, create bottlenecks in AI systems. These roles will evolve. But waiting for that to happen naturally means falling behind now. The 100x org is actually heavily dependent on people - infinitely more than today. This is only possible with 10x people that have embraced and adopted new ways of working. THE BUILDERS, AGENT MANAGERS, AND FRONT-LINERS — THE BUILDERS: 10X ENGINEERS I don't think most companies have internalized what's actually happening with AI in engineering. The common narrative is that AI makes all engineers more productive. That may be true in isolation, but at an organization level - that is the farthest thing from reality. Here's what we've validated recently at ClickUp: the great engineers, the ones who can orchestrate, architect, and review, are becoming 100x engineers. They're not writing code. They're directing agents that write code. The skill is judgment. AI makes the best engineers wildly more productive, and everyone else using AI slows these engineers down. Think about it - the bottlenecks are (1) orchestration - telling AI what to do, and (2) reviewing - what AI did. Everything is leapfrogged and no longer needed. So who do you want orchestrating and reviewing code? And how do you want your best engineers to spend their time? If your best engineers are spending time reviewing other people's code, then this is inherently an inefficient bottleneck. These engineers can review their agent's code much faster than reviewing human code. The new world is about enabling your 10x engineers to become 100x. The wrong strategy is to push every engineer to use infinite tokens. Companies doing this are celebrating 500% more pull requests. But customer outcomes don't match the volume of code being generated. I call this the great reckoning of AI coding, and every company will face this soon if not already. More code is just another bottleneck to the best engineers, and ultimately to your company's impact as well. — THE BUILDERS: 10X PRODUCT MANAGERS Product management and design roles are merging. Designers that have customer focus, become more like product managers. And product managers that have intuition for UX become more like designers. The bottleneck of user research is gone. It takes us just one mention of an agent to kickoff research and analyze results. The bottleneck of product <> design iteration is also gone. The product builder iterates on their own, along with agents and skills that ensure alignment with quality and strategy. Also controversial today - I believe that the wrong strategy is to have your PMs shipping code - that just introduces another bottleneck that the best engineers will waste their time on. To be clear, PMs should be coding but they should do this in a playground to iterate, validate, and scope. That code should not go to production. Everything outside of managing systems, orchestrating AI, and reviewing output becomes a bottleneck. That's why the other roles that are critical along with these are the systems managers (to reduce bottlenecks) along with a bottleneck you can't replace - customer meeting time. — THE SYSTEM MANAGERS Ironically, the people that automate their jobs with AI will always have a job. They become owners of the AI systems - agent managers. We have many examples of these people at ClickUp. The underlying systems in which we operate are absolutely critical to get right. I think most companies are delusional to think they can iterate on existing systems and compete in this new world. You must create enough disruption so that old systems are deprecated entirely. If there's any definition for 'AI native' that's what it is. — THE FRONT-LINERS In a world that will become saturated with AI communication, the human touch will matter more than anything to customers. This is a bottleneck that you shouldn't replace - even when agents are high enough quality to do video meetings. One-on-one meeting time with customers is something that shouldn't be automated. The systems around the meetings should be - so that front-liners spend nearly 100% of their time with customers. REWARDING 100X IMPACT In a world where companies are able to do so much more with less, where does that excess money go? In our case, much of the savings in this new operating model will flow directly back to those that enabled it. We must reward people that create productivity accordingly. This aligns incentives on both sides. Plus, in a world where your best people create 100x impact, you can't afford to lose them. You should aim to retain these employees for decades. The context they have and their ability to efficiently orchestrate and review will be nearly impossible to replace. Compensation bands of today should be thrown out the door. We're introducing $1 million cash/year salary bands with a path available to nearly everyone in the company if they produce 100x impact by creating or managing AI systems. THE FUTURE Nearly every company will make changes like these. The ones that do it proactively will define what comes next. The future is not fewer people. It's different work, new roles, and better rewards for those who embrace it. We're already seeing entirely new roles emerge, like Agent Managers, that didn't exist a year ago. ClickUp is positioning to lead this shift, not just internally, but for our customers too. I've never been more certain about where we're headed.

@hicasamadim 3, 7 never fills due to hole. 3 will fill though

sadece dikkat seviyesi yüksek olanlar yapabilecek! ilk kaç numaralı kap dolar?

@aarondfrancis Sounds a bit like Claude peers, really love using that for package to package communication, where two repos work together

When agents can send raw input to other agents, you can do some wild things! Here I set up a "Watchdog" agent to monitor an "Orchestrator" agent. I told the Watchdog that whenever the Orchestrator hits a permission prompt of a certain type, just go ahead and approve it for me.

@ashleyhindle Hmm have that maybe once a week only

Tempted to stop my Claude subscription because every time I open it and type out a long ass thought, it replies with Please run /login · API Error: 401 Invalid authentication credentials Why is it logging me out every 40 seconds?! But 'claude auth status' says it's all good?! 🧐

@driesvints @wesbos Transition period probably

@wesbos Expectations: AI is gonna make us work less Reality: Exploits everywhere, everyday, all the time.

im tried dog

@ThePrimeagen @daanyaalss Maybe it will enable bulk operations via tools instead of pure tokens, only benefit I can come up with

@daanyaalss json is not a special magic bullet for llms. English works just fine. I refuse to believe: ERROR: some syntax error... vs { status: ERROR, msg: some syntax error... } is some how more comprehensible. I think this line of reasoning is fake and intellectual masturbation.

I have reviewed the language and really tried to understand this, but I really do not understand this language's purpose other than engineers with too much free time, free tokens, and a marketing budget. I was very excited to read about a language is "agent's first." Its just zig with a touch of java and rust...

@jclermont Neat!

After sharing my workarounds for copying from Claude, a reader asked about a remaining annoyance I haven't fully solved. Plus I learned about a built-in slash command that solves this differently. masteringlaravel.io/daily/2026-05-…

@slaFFik @aarondfrancis Aaron is the wholesomest

It's really impressive that Aaron wrote back with targeted "I gotchu" feedback for things being fixed from those that were reported by me. It elevates the experience so much. Great job, @aarondfrancis.

@CodeWithDennis The proposed unrealized gains tax is indeed a terrible idea and will be very demotivating to invest. Ironically enough the EU is running a program to motivate people to invest. Can't make this shit up

@sander_scode Just a bunch of stuff... The housing market is crazy right now. If you try to invest and save up, they're probably gonna slap a nice unrealized gains tax on it soon. On top of that, safety seems to be getting worse every year.

I’m seriously wondering if it’s time to leave the Netherlands. 😅

@isaac_ts_way @mattstauffer Junior level reviews more like it

@sander_scode @mattstauffer Junior level take. We have code review, and multiple layers of testing. Doesn’t mean minor issues won’t happen some times

Minor prod issue last night caused by faulty migration putting some rows in an unexpected state: - engineer without context about how the code was “supposed to work” worked with AI and opened a PR with a bunch of lines of changes to critical code - engineer with context saw it and says “no just run this database command to put the rows in the expected state.” Fixed the issue in 2 minutes with 0 risk Important lesson here - AI is not good enough at context gathering to know how things should work in a complex system. That’s can only be understood (at most) by the engineers that wrote it because AI does not have reliable ability for storing long term context in a useful way. Interestingly, none of the frontier labs seem to care much about this limitation. Dario has said he thinks we can get AGI without memory… but not sure how an AI will ever be able to react to above situation correctly without it. I guess future systems will throw slop at prod until it works. 🤷 if we had just listened to the AI maybe it actually fixes it eventually, just with a huge amount of unnecessary changes.

@LiamHammett Wasn't lang in resources in the past, actually moved to root?

With all the directory clearing up that happened with Laravel over the last couple of versions, I'm surprised `lang` and `stubs` weren't shifted into the `resources` directory. They both feel like things that can be shoved out of the way a bit

@nateberkopec Half the Twitter comments are so clearly written by ai, disgusting

I'm so sick of reading em dashes and "it's not x, it's y." I'm so sick of it, man.

@mattpocockuk I do both. Feature flag to ship faster, but still via PR. Feature flag just means we have time to internally test live and improve/ redesign before people are used to it

Is anyone doing feature flag development with agents? Not tried it, but in theory feature flagging is an alternative model to PR's to getting work on main. 1. Put it on main, disabled by a flag 2. Deploy with the rest of the system 3. Unflag to selected users early 4. Fix bugs for those users 5. Unflag to more users 6. Repeat until shipped Feels like a perfect strategy to pair with agents