saif

100% The decisions we agonized over for weeks were never better than the ones we made in the room. Act in the momentum and correct as you go.

When you’re remote, then all of your actions are mediated by computers, which means that the AI can access & act on them This advantage only compounds further as models improve x.com/jack/status/20…

Today we released our new AI Fluency Rubric. We use it for every hire, focusing on what they’ve actually built. Last May we open-sourced V1. Hundreds of companies used it to screen candidates and develop teams. It worked. But the floor moved fast. An updated look at the 3 levels of AI fluency at @Zapier: 1. Capable: "I use AI to operate at a meaningfully higher level." 2. Adoptive: "I orchestrate AI and build systems that elevate how I work." 3. Transformative: "I re-engineer how work happens." We evaluate theses across 4 dimensions: Mindset, Strategy, Building, and Accountability. We're sharing V2 publicly for the same reason we shared V1: every company needs a framework for this, and most don't have one yet. Don’t see your role? See all departments / learn more here: zpr.io/xQq5PHMDChrL

One of the biggest mistakes startups make is optimizing for order, stability and structure rather than outcomes. The order you see at large successful companies is not what created success, it’s a massive tax that you need to pay to coordinate large numbers of people. A startup’s main advantage is not having to pay this tax, working on outcomes directly instead of through “systems”. Working on outcomes through systems is like painting with boxing gloves on.

you haven’t met all the people who will love you yet

right now everything in the world is telling you to go faster, ship more, add that feature, start another project so i'm actively working on feeling ok not doing any of that

Great strategy arises from execution. Strategy isolated from execution is BS.

stay delusional, your win is coming twin

I went from the receiving end of "you must not be doing sth important if you're using AI to code" to "ngmi if you're not parallelizing 20 agents 24/7" real fast. I'm still trying to best wield one agent :)

“If someone 50 years ago planted a row of oaks or a chestnut tree on your plot of land, you have something that no amount of money or effort can replicate. The only way is to wait.” lucumr.pocoo.org/2026/3/20/some…

Until you’ve accomplished anything big, this climb through fog feels the same as losing So most people quit But those who don’t learn that the secret to winning lies in never giving up until you catch a big break

Love it. We should all aspire to do the little things that help each other.

OpenCode’s rules for fighting slop: - don’t ship features just because you can - leave the code better than you found it - fixing features & process > new features so well reasoned

I think we have lost some sense of judgment and moderation when it comes to product building currently. The moment you turn something into a universally celebrated metric, whether that is token burn, prototype count, or percentage of agent-written code, you start losing sight of what actually matters. I have felt the same way for a long time about overusing data and A/B testing to build products. The moment you reduce product quality or productivity to a metric, you stop shipping value and start shipping numbers. A lot of what people are doing with AI makes directional sense. The missing piece is counterbalance: 1. AI should help engineers build better products. Leaderboards and adoption metrics can be useful as directional signals. They do not tell you what is being built, whether it is good, or whether it should exist at all. 2. Users do not care what percentage of your code was written by agents. They care about the outcome. Faster output is useful. Like usually, faster doesn't seem to add to quality, clarity, or stability of products. Power to build should not become an excuse to lower quality bars. 3. LLM-generated prototypes can feel like late-night whiteboarding sessions. They look exciting in the moment and feel productive very quickly. Then a few days later you realize the idea was shallow, distracting, or simply wrong. The same trap shows up in jumping straight to code and solutions more broadly. You may just be building the wrong thing more efficiently. Prototyping has its place. So do clear thinking, good design, and a real understanding of the user’s problem. In terms of activities or momentum, the main quest and the side quest can both feel productive but only one actually moves the mission forward. 4. Adding more to products is still dangerous as ever even if time or effort to add it has gone down. Every addition creates complexity, maintenance cost, and user confusion. New features should be pushed back unless they clearly show it should exist and how it improves the product. 5. Not everything needs to be an agent shaped. A simple scheduled task does not need a full LLM sandbox. Making something agentic because it feels current or impressive does not make it right-sized, correct, or effective. The core ideas are: - even if you can, maybe you should not. - more power we have to build should not reduce our need to think, it should increase it.

@ericzakariasson @leerob If you have tips for how to achieve these, would be very thankful!

I love the idea of automations! Thank you for shipping. Unfortunately, the use cases I was most excited about I can't automate yet: - without a post GitHub actions hook I can't make a release note in my slack channel on every release. - I can't update docs in docs repo after updates in my frontend repo. - sometimes I want multiple PRs (fullstsck changes, separate repos) to be taken together for 1 release note / doc update. Fwiw the cloud agents are also not used by me because it can't do multi repo changes.

You can now use skills in your Cursor automations! For example, this loaded a skill from our repo that investigates the past day of Datadog logs and tries to find any issues we might have missed.

This is what I call "Schrödinger's Agenda". The meeting exists in a superposition of having a purpose and not having a purpose until someone finally asks what we're deciding, at which point it collapses into "oh, this is just a sync." The rule "if you can't say what decision you're asking for, you're not ready for the meeting" is brilliant because it forces the wave function to collapse before you waste seven person-hours.