标签：#devex

Throughout my career I have had to work with quite a few platform teams, and I was part of two for a couple of years. Some were bad, some were good and some should not have existed at all. I want to tell you my user experience, what I have seen work and what not and what you should definitely avoid doing. Be The Multiplier This is the main goal of a platform team. As a team, it needs to be a multiplier. If the platform team supports 10 teams, then each work it commits should multiply by 10. If the team member builds a new feature, it should be helpful for all the other teams. Otherwise, the platform team is an addition, and in most cases it is then better to split the platform team and add them to all other teams, instead of being a separate team. Because the amount of communication needed is in most cases quadratic in relation to the number of teams. Reducing Cognitive Load The platform should take away cognitive load for all the teams it supports. By doing so, they will have more time to implement business requirements. Let's say a platform team provides Gitlab runners or Azure Agents where people can run their CI/CD code on. They should not need to know how the runners are scaled, or how the agents are updated. This takes away the need for that skill set in all the teams. Build a Community A platform team has a unique position. It is building something that all other developers probably can build as well. Some could do it even better than the platform team itself. For some platform teams, their ego sometimes comes in to play or just straight up refuses their help because they are not the team. But it is not the job of the platform team to build a product, but a platform where everyone can thrive and/or build on. So onboard the community on the platform! The Law of Diffusion applies to almost all companies. You will have the innovators that want to build it themselves and the early adopters that will voice their opinion, but will not build it themselves. Those two

Working with modern APIs means living in JSON. But the moment your project touches a legacy enterprise system - a bank, a government service, or a SOAP endpoint that hasn't changed in a decade - you're suddenly dealing with XML. The challenge isn't just swapping syntax; it's understanding where the two formats are structurally incompatible, and what breaks silently when you ignore that. Why JSON and XML Don't Simply Map to Each Other JSON is compact and type-aware - it distinguishes between numbers, booleans, strings, and arrays natively. XML is verbose, treats all content as text, and has no concept of arrays. It only has repeated sibling elements. This gap is where most conversion bugs are born. A JSON array with just one item can silently become a plain object if your converter doesn't handle the edge case explicitly. The Three Biggest Conversion Pitfalls First is array ambiguity - XML has no array type, so a JSON array becomes repeated sibling elements. A single-item array is indistinguishable from a plain object unless your converter explicitly preserves the list context. Second is type erasure - XML flattens numbers, booleans, and strings into plain text, destroying the type information that many downstream systems depend on. Third is the single root element rule - JSON can have multiple top-level keys, but every valid XML document must have exactly one root element wrapping everything else. Handling Arrays the Right Way Always nest array items inside a named parent element. A JSON users array should produce a parent element containing individual child elements. This structure makes the list unambiguous to any downstream XML parser and prevents silent data loss during round-trips. Escaping Special Characters Characters that are perfectly valid inside a JSON string will break an XML parser immediately. Your conversion logic must escape these four: less-than becomes <, greater-than becomes >, ampersand becomes &, and double-quote becomes ". Skipping even one of

TL;DR -DevRelCon NYC returns to Industry City in Brooklyn on July 22–23, 2026. It's the flagship...

When a team hits a ceiling with their coding agent, the first instinct is to reach for a better model. The reasoning feels obvious: the model is the part that produces the code, the code is the part that is wrong, therefore a smarter model will produce more correct code. Wait for the next release. Switch providers. Bump the tier. This is sometimes right. It is much more often wrong, and the cost of being wrong about it is that you spend months waiting for a model upgrade to solve a problem the model was never the cause of. The harness is the cause of the problem more often than the model. Most teams discover this only after they have exhausted the model-upgrade reflex and finally turn to look at everything else. What a model upgrade actually buys you Newer, stronger models do tangibly improve some things. They handle longer contexts more reliably. They make fewer simple reasoning errors on complex tasks. They follow nuanced instructions more closely. On a fixed prompt, with a fixed task, a better model produces a better answer. What model upgrades do not change: The fact that the agent has no idea your team prefers functional components over class components, because the convention is not in any file the agent reads. The fact that your tests do not actually fail when the code is wrong, so the agent can ship broken code that passes CI. The fact that your codebase has three different ways of handling errors and the agent picks one at random on each PR. The fact that the rule the senior engineer keeps repeating in reviews is not encoded anywhere the next session can see. None of these are fixed by a smarter model. They are fixed by a better harness. A smarter model loaded into the same broken harness will produce slightly more sophisticated versions of the same problems. The diagnostic The diagnostic is one question: when the agent fails, does it fail because it lacked information, or because it lacked capability? A capability failure looks like: the task required reas

The same agent, same prompts, did markedly different work on two codebases I work in. One has a test suite that runs in eight seconds. The other takes twelve minutes. The eight-second project gets a careful, iterative collaborator. The twelve-minute project gets a confident guesser. I noticed it first as a vibe. The agent in the slow codebase would write five files at once, then announce the task complete without having run anything end to end. The agent in the fast codebase would write one function, run the tests, react to the failure, fix it, run them again. Same model. Same configuration. The only difference was how expensive it was to learn whether the previous step was right. That is the whole post in one sentence. An agent's effective intelligence is bounded by how fast it can verify its hypotheses. Cut the verification cost and you raise the agent's apparent IQ. Raise it and you lower the agent's apparent IQ. The model in the middle is unchanged. Why this binds harder for agents than for humans A human engineer can hold a hypothesis in their head. "I think this works. I will check it later." The cost of holding the hypothesis is roughly free; the human has institutional memory, intuition, a sense of what the code does that does not require running the code to confirm. They can defer verification without losing fidelity. An agent cannot. It has no intuition about your codebase. The only ground truth it has access to is what the tests say, what the type checker says, what the build says. When those signals are cheap, the agent uses them constantly. When they are expensive, the agent stops using them and starts speculating. Speculation by an agent looks plausible. It produces code that compiles, follows the patterns it has seen in your repository, names things sensibly. The problem is that plausible is not the same as correct. The agent that speculates is shipping a guess; the agent that iterates is shipping a tested answer. From the diff alone, they can be hard