A design doc before the hard-to-reverse change
Anything touching schema, auth, or a public interface gets written down first. Ten minutes of writing is cheaper than a migration.
[ 00 / 02 ] · Process
How I approach engineering work, from the first question to what ships and what happens to it after.
I don't follow a rigid process. I follow the problem and let context shape the approach.
Before writing a single line of code, I make sure I actually understand what needs to happen and why. Talk to whoever owns the problem, dig into the data, map out the edges.
I'm a researcher by nature. If I don't know something, I find the answer. I look at how others have solved similar problems, evaluate the tradeoffs, and pick the right tool.
Every decision should be traceable to a reason. Architecture, stack choices, even naming. Intentionality compounds over time into systems that are easy to maintain and extend.
Understanding the business context changes everything. I translate technical complexity into clear direction and make sure the work connects to real outcomes.
Done is better than perfect, but done doesn't mean finished. Ship it, measure it, learn from it, and make it better. The best work comes from cycles, not sprints.
Anything touching schema, auth, or a public interface gets written down first. Ten minutes of writing is cheaper than a migration.
One concern per PR. Easier to review, easier to revert, and easier to understand when someone runs git blame on it a year from now.
Written alongside the code rather than bolted on afterward. They document what the code is supposed to do as much as they catch regressions.
READMEs, architecture decisions, and on-call notes, so the system keeps working when I am not the one holding it.
Have a problem worth
working through?