Will has trouble with this in a relatively nimble org, where he has good control of what is adopted. Imagine how much fun this is in more ossified enterprise environments, where getting work done efficiently means bypassing process with dev lead and line management blessings. The differences in performance among individuals has never been wider, and not just gains in productivity, but performance losses as some people who have iffy judgement cause trouble a lot faster.

Maintaining quality when an organization just lacks the muscle to make changes and nobody has the mandate to try to make sure uptime is in good shape is a challenge. A lot of things break, precisely because there's just as much change as Will sees, but it's very unevenly distriuted.

So I ended up doing something similar:

- Create a Git Hub project board for issues

- Connect Grok to the above

- Use Grok voice mode to take ideas, have Grok refine them with me and then save them as issues

- Created slash commands in OpenCode like /ni (new issue), /do (do an issue), /curr (what is the current issue), /done (self explanatory)

- I generally tell the OpenCode instance to /do <number> and then off it goes

This give me several benefits:

- I can use Grok Voice while walking or driving to develop and test ideas

- I can lose my entire local OpenCode setup but still have relevant data in the issues

- multiple machines can read from GitHub

- I could go even further and have separate user accounts for each of my bots.

Having been both a PM, dev, SRE and manager, this really does feel like managing a team of devs.

Writing about these things in public and putting yourself out there is greatly appreciated. Hats off for that!

However, as far as what's being pursued, it seems more like wantonly trying to ride a hype cycle without strongly questioning the end-to-end value of new software development approaches or vetting their immediate suitability.

Personally, I think it would be more sensible to take a few individuals or a smaller team(s) and do more isolated/skunkworks experimentation and adopt as justified based on what those people report/experience. The smaller group can adjust faster and iterate/advise the larger dev org about the good approaches/techniques/strategies, and avoid more broad damage/chaos for things that aren't that well thought out.

For more conservative AI use cases like adding to code review, writing low stakes PR summaries, or beefing up security checking, a more global, but still not off-the-rails, approach would be the kinds of things that would make more sense to push more broadly.

Has anyone demonstrably gained market share over a competitor who is vocally _not_ adopting agentic software development flows? This article outlines a lot of process churn without a clear through line to how it is impacting feature development or revenue.

My team is in the agentic orchestrator phase. I like this software factory pattern in concept, but our biggest challenges in development are acceptance testing of anything UI-related. Mobile app testing in particular is still a huge bottleneck that requires a human. AI models really suck at identifying poor usability and jank, particularly because they only typically process snapshots of the app from an instance in time.

I know there are traditional testing frameworks that can detect jitter and frame drop to a certain level. We could potentially start having agents build that in.

If we had concrete designs and specs on every project, that would also be helpful, but in a fast-moving startup, that gets delegated to the builders. That puts a human back in the loop every time.

Curious to hear what anyone else does to fully adopt a software factory pattern.