Thariq Shehzad, on the Claude Code team at Anthropic, has switched from markdown to HTML as his default agent output format. The reasoning is more honest than a format-war argument would suggest, because it’s about what humans will actually read. He opens by acknowledging what markdown was for:

Markdown has become the dominant file format used by agents to communicate with us. It’s simple, portable, has some rich text capability and is easy for you to edit. Claude has even gotten surprisingly good at using ASCII to make diagrams inside of markdown files. But as agents have become more and more powerful, I have felt that markdown has become a restricting format.

Then the pivot:

As Claude is able to do more complex work, it is also writing larger and larger specs and plans. In practice, I’ve found I tend to not actually read more than a 100-line markdown file, and I certainly am not able to get anyone else in my organization to read it. But HTML documents are much easier to read, Claude can organize the structure visually to be ideal to navigate with tabs, illustrations, links, etc.

When the spec gets long enough that you stop reading it, you’ve quietly moved from review to rubber-stamp. Shehzad’s answer isn’t to ask Claude for shorter specs. It’s to make the artifact something a human will actually open, scroll, and share. A controllable, shareable artifact is most of what made personal computing legible in the first place; HTML is the format that already does it.

He puts the trade-off honestly when the obvious objection comes up:

While markdown often uses fewer tokens, I’ve found that the added expressiveness of HTML and the much higher likelihood of me reading it means I get overall better output. With the 1MM context window in Opus 4.7, the increased token usage is not really noticeable in the context window.

And the close is the real argument:

The real reason I use HTML is that I feel much more in the loop with Claude. I had begun to fear that because I had stopped reading plans in depth I would simply have to leave Claude to make its choices. But I am happy to say instead that I feel more in the loop than ever before when using HTML.

My recent newsletter, “Out of Your Head, Into the File,” made the case for getting taste out of your head: writing it down so it can survive the messy middle of an AI workflow. Mia Kiraki, writing in Robots Ate My Homework, picks up the other half of that problem: how taste erodes when you don’t.

Her central image is the Hansel and Gretel gingerbread house, recast:

AI output is the gingerbread. You’re tired, the deadline is close. The output IS the shelter. You eat it - of course you eat it. That’s what gingerbread is made for, right? […] The Grimms buried a much smarter lesson in the early pages, before the witch even shows up. Hansel drops breadcrumbs to mark his path through the forest and the birds eat every one. He still leaves them, though. Those breadcrumbs are your taste, every little choice you make on the page (this word, this angle, this risk) which leaves a marker of who you are. The forest will always try to erase them.

What’s specific to AI is the environment. It’s now optimized to wear taste down a percent at a time, in ways you can’t feel while it’s happening, until the work you used to do feels like someone else’s.

Kiraki puts the mechanism plainly:

If most of your reading this week was AI slop (which is pretty likely given the state of the internet), you trained your judgment on machine output. […] Each accepted sentence is a small vote for a lower standard. You accept a vague phrase because the deadline is close. You let a soft claim through because rewriting from scratch would cost an hour you don’t have. […] Taste dies slowly, when you wake up someday and read something you wrote six months ago and realize you used to sound so different. You had edges, took risks, made claims, and you sounded like a person who made choices.

Kiraki gets at the failure mode that follows once taste is the only real moat left.

Her counter:

Read work that operates at a higher standard than yours. Work where someone made choices you wouldn’t have made or took risks you would have edited out. Your taste calibrates upward when you expose it to judgment that outclasses your own. […] Practice the explanation. When something in your own work feels wrong, write down the reason. The specificity of your explanation is the weapon. […] Ship work that makes you nervous. If a piece feels comfortable to publish, you probably didn’t push hard enough. The pieces that make your stomach tighten show and prove your taste is working at full capacity.

The middle one is what that newsletter was about: writing down the reasons, not just the verdict. Kiraki adds the bookends. Read above your level so your baseline isn’t drifting toward consensus. Publish the version that scares you a little, because the version that doesn’t is the gingerbread.

Talking to Peter Yang, Ravi Mehta—former CPO of Tinder, now teaching AI prototyping at Reforge—walks through a live demo of building the same Spotify-style genre page three different ways. The first attempt uses a short functional prompt and produces something that, in Mehta’s words, kind of feels like AI slop. The third uses what he calls a full-stack context bundle: a functional spec, a 20-minute Figma wireframe, and a JSON file of real album data pulled together in Claude with an MCP server. The output is night and day.

His definition of the shift:

Context engineering is designing and building systems that provide an AI model with the right information and tools to accomplish the task. And I think a lot of the common mistake I see with prototyping is people don’t think about context within that 360 degree way. And as a result, people just, you know, write a quick prompt or a quick little mini spec and expect the prototype tool to be able to create something as high fidelity as what they used to create before when they had all of these different artifacts that are a critical part of the product lifecycle.

That definition will sound familiar to anyone who saw Philipp Schmid’s framing of context engineering when it first circulated. Same emphasis on “right information and tools.” It’s the working definition the field has settled on. What Mehta adds is the concrete answer to “okay, what are the three things you actually have to assemble?” Functional context (a spec), visual context (a wireframe), and data context (real structured JSON, not lorem ipsum). Skip any of them and the prototype either looks generic, behaves wrong at edge cases, or breaks suspension of disbelief the moment a real customer touches it.

The piece I want to underline is his defense of visual thinking, because the “designers are obsolete” takes haven’t stopped, and Mehta gives them a clean rebuttal:

So if you start to think differently about the different types of context that are available, you can actually get much more specific and have a lot more control over what gets built and build something that’s a lot more robust. This is functional context. The next level that is really important is visual context. […] And so here, I very quickly in Figma, just taking 20 minutes, done a wireframe, and sort of outlined what I want this interface to look like. […] The prototype needs to have a level of fidelity that’s hard to get with sort of traditional prompting techniques.

Twenty minutes in Figma, then a short prompt that says “use the attached wireframe.” A wireframe does what a 17-page PRD and three rounds of trying to describe a layout in English to the model can’t. The wireframe is part of the input to the deliverable now.

The corollary cuts the other way too. If the wireframe is now an AI briefing document, the people who can produce a decent one in twenty minutes have a real edge over the people who can’t. That’s still designers, still us. It’s just that the wireframe now feeds the model directly, not only the engineer reading the spec next sprint.

In product orgs, the word “autonomy” tends to get attached to seniority and titles. Sara Paul, writing for Nielsen Norman Group, puts the bar somewhere else:

Our research shows that autonomy is about becoming sufficiently informed to credibly shape shared product decisions.

You’ve earned design autonomy when you’ve collected enough context to make a recommendation that holds up under scrutiny. Until then, you haven’t. Low-autonomy designers, in Paul’s terms, “execute predefined solutions.” High-autonomy designers shape what gets prioritized, because they know things their stakeholders don’t.

The four-part pipeline is the practitioner half:

The designers who achieved high autonomy kept information flowing to them from all sources within their organization. Their pipelines consisted of four parts: (1) Gathering information from across teams and channels, (2) Building relationships with people who provide information, (3) Creating crossfunctional spaces for information to be shared, (4) Synthesizing information to form a “big picture” of context that empowered credible recommendations.

Paul’s examples are specific enough to put to use. The opening one is a lead designer at an online review platform whose ad-setup experience lived across mobile, desktop, and web. Three teams owned different parts of the experience and the whole was nobody’s job. Here’s how the story ends:

She saw the problem, took the initiative to gather the information she needed, and synthesized it into a recommendation that boosted her influence over what got built. This is design autonomy.

None of this required a new title. It required a tracker, a few standing meetings, and the willingness to do the synthesis work nobody assigned.

The designers I want—and have—on my team are the ones who can fill in for a PM when they’re on vacation. Paul’s article is the mechanism for getting there. The PM-shaped skill is holding the information context that lets you make a defensible call.

Alex Dapunt, VP Design and Brand at Moonfare, opens with a research session in which a senior client laid out exactly what to build next, with the roadmap, rationale, and feature list ready inside a minute. The client was wrong, Dapunt writes, but not because he was stupid. He was wrong because he had been asked the wrong question and his instinct was to answer it anyway.

The smarter your users, the more convincing their wrong answers. A user says they want ice cream. While they say they want ice cream, what they need is to cool down. Their body wants sugar. It’s hot. There’s a memory somewhere in there, a summer ritual, something cold in their hand. The want closes off options. The need opens them. Take “I want ice cream” at face value and you sell them ice cream. Understand the need and you can sell them a popsicle, a cold drink, air conditioning, a swim in the sea.

The want-versus-need split is older than this piece. Dapunt credits Jared Spool for it. The part Dapunt adds is about who tends to give you the worst version of a want. He argues the failure intensifies in premium and B2B contexts, where the people you most want to talk to are the people most trained to produce confident answers under pressure.

The Moonfare client wasn’t an outlier. I think a lot about why this happens. Part of the answer, I think, is that the people we were interviewing had been trained, explicitly, to produce answers. At Bain, where I spent time earlier in my career, the core discipline is what’s called the answer-first approach, or the A1. You lead with the answer. Then you work backwards. […] It’s a disastrous way to sit in a research session as a user. An executive trained that way walks in and the instinct takes over. They feel the absence of an answer as pressure. They want to be useful. They want to look smart. They give you the A1, and it’s precise and articulate because producing precise articulate answers is what they are paid to do.

Dapunt’s observation about ambiguity is worth carrying into the next interview transcript you read. When a regular user says “I dunno, maybe?” he argues, the fuzziness is signal that the question is wrong. The executive doesn’t give you that signal, so you have to know to discount the clarity.

Dapunt then turns the same lens on metrics. His version of the metrics-as-avoidance failure mode is more specific: the wrong moment, not just the wrong number.

At Moonfare we tracked logins. More logins looks good on a dashboard. Looks like engagement. But private equity is a 5-to-10 year product. For most of that time nothing is supposed to happen. […] The right moment isn’t a platform question. It’s a life question. When does this person have cashflow? When’s bonus season? What does their portfolio look like right now, and is there a product we offer that fits the gap? The real need isn’t log in more. It’s be present when a decision is being made. Five well-timed touchpoints in a year beat fifty random ones.

The piece closes on the part of research practice that gets least attention.

Research is intake. You take it in. You synthesise. Then someone has to make the call and own it. […] In practice I’ve watched it produce three biases averaged into a consensus nobody owns. Someone has to own the interpretation. It can be a researcher, a designer, a founder, a PM. But it’s one person’s job, and it comes with the accountability for the call that follows. The alternative is research-as-stalling.

Dapunt is careful here. He likes continuous discovery, he likes the product trio in theory, and he is not making a contrarian case against any of it. His point is narrower. A team can run all the right research rituals and still end up with a process whose actual function is to ensure no single person has to take responsibility for being wrong.

PJ Onori built a tool that A/B tests his design system against AI agents, and he’s careful to say it isn’t impressive:

Two groups of agents get spun up, and both are given the same prompt to make an interface. One group’s given the old design system. The other is given our new one. Each agent provides feedback on problems faced after it’s done. Once all agents finish, the builds are evaluated on a bunch of crap and a report is generated.

The list of what the tool measures is long: timing, lines of code, code variance, fix attempts, components used, accessibility, performance, inline styles, visual diff, token usage, agent feedback. Onori, on the test he ran when he wasn’t sure his documentation was actually doing the work:

I was starting to question if documentation was making things better. Maybe component improvements was doing the heavy lifting–who knows? So, I ran a couple tests without documentation… The documentation was clearly the heavy lifter. […] Documentation is essential for systems that agents don’t have a lot of reps with. I’ve started to add a “For agents” section in the docs. That section is the dumpster for “get it in your silicon head” training.

The “For agents” section is a small idea with a real implication. Documentation has historically been written for one audience. Now there are two, and as Onori says elsewhere in the post, the second one needs “the same damned point” repeated five or six times and doesn’t care if the prose is ugly. His instinct is to wall that off so humans don’t have to read it.

Onori is publishing measurements where most people are publishing takes. That’s the missing piece in the design-system-as-moat argument: somebody actually testing whether agents do better with a well-built system than a worse one, and showing the numbers. Onori, on the closing caution:

There’s a lot of noise in the output, feedback, and analysis–otherwise know as everything. That noise compounds fast. Think of the telephone game–then think about what that’d do to a design system. […] Feedback needs to go through a BS filter. […] The feedback part of the analysis is helpful. Make no mistake. But it needs to heavy interpretation.

The telephone game is the right picture. A design system that updates itself based on agent feedback that’s been generated by other agents and analyzed by a third agent is going to drift somewhere strange in a small number of iterations, and nobody on the team will be able to reconstruct why. Onori’s tool stops short of that on purpose: it produces measurements, and a person reads them.

Marcus Moretti’s guide to agent-native product management, in Every, is the orchestration shift showing up on the PM side of the team. The guide opens with the 1930s Procter & Gamble origin story: someone owns the product. The job has been rewritten so many times since then that PMs are now expected to be design partners, diplomats, sales people, and statisticians on top of running the 100+ software subscriptions the average company buys. What’s interesting is that the piece is describing the old role, finally legible again now that agents can absorb the administrative debt that piled up on top of it.

Now, much of the interdisciplinary work that goes into product management can be done by an LLM in minutes, sometimes seconds. What used to be a three-hour-long analytics investigation is now a simple back-and-forth with Claude. A product review that used to be a fortnightly chore emerges from a single typo-ridden chat message. This has been my recent experience, at least. I no longer struggle with semicolons in SQL queries or even write tickets. All of my product management work happens in conversation with, in my case, Claude Code. The conversation is the work.

“The conversation is the work” sounds like a description of the new job. Read it next to the 1930s origin story and it’s a description of the old one. The Brand Man at P&G wasn’t writing SQL; he was deciding what the product should be and who it was for. The intervening ninety years of accumulated tooling—agile ceremonies and ticket hygiene, analytics dashboards on top of those—was friction PMs had to push through to get back to the actual work. Moretti’s /ce-strategy command, modeled on Richard Rumelt’s Good Strategy Bad Strategy, isn’t a new artifact either. Strategy documents predate LLMs by decades. What’s new, Moretti says, is the cadence: every few months, the agent re-runs the strategy interview with the accumulated context of everything you’ve shipped.

Writing a strategy document cold is hard. The best way to do it, I’ve found, is to have an agent interview you. The ce-strategy skill does this. It runs through the sections in order and has built-in guidance about what makes a good answer (and what kinds of answers to push back on). […] The interview is deliberately conversational. If the first answer to, “What’s the core problem this product solves” is vague, the agent drills down: “Whose situation specifically? What do they try today, and why doesn’t it work?” The guidance here is taken from personal experience and from the Rumelt book.

The guide assumes a PM who has the taste to recognize when the agent’s follow-up has exposed a gap. The ones who don’t will end up with a strategy.md full of confident-sounding nonsense, generated quickly and reviewed lightly. Agent-native PM removes the alibi that you were too busy with tickets to do the actual thinking. That maps to a warning from Raj Nandan Sharma: when generation gets cheap, the scarce skill is refusal: knowing what to throw out and why. Moretti’s PM is doing exactly that, sentence by sentence, in the strategy interview.

Moretti closes:

LLMs have allowed our tools to catch up with the multifaceted duties of product managers. For me, product management has been reduced to the interesting parts: dreaming up features, thinking through designs, looking at interesting data, and talking to users. We all feel the economic imperative to embrace AI tools, but the better reason, I think, is to make work more fun.

Nick Babich on agents in UX Planet. A useful pair to his earlier writeup on Claude skills, since the two words get used interchangeably and they are not the same thing. Babich opens with the plain-language version:

Think of an AI agent as a program you run when you need to solve a particular problem in design. For example, you can create an AI agent that helps you with usability testing, code review, UI/UX audit, etc.

A program you run is the right mental model. A skill, the way Babich described it in his earlier piece, is a recipe: a markdown file Claude reaches for when a task matches. An agent is what runs once Claude has the recipe in hand. It carries state across steps, picks tools, reports back.

Babich’s four attributes of a well-designed agent get at that distinction without saying it out loud:

1. Good clarity (intent alignment). A strong agent understands what success looks like, not just the task. This understanding helps it translate vague prompts into clear objectives.
2. Context awareness. Good agents maintain and use context effectively. Not only do they remember previous steps, constraints, and user preferences (which is well-expected behavior nowadays), but they also adapt output based on the environment (tools, data, stage of workflow).
3. Tool orchestration. Agents can perform the workflow autonomously and they have the ability to use the right tools for a task at hand is what makes an agent so powerful. Well-crafted agents can chain tools together into workflows, and they don’t overuse tools when simple reasoning is enough.
4. Explainability (transparent reasoning). When you interact with an AI agent, you need to understand why something happened. Thus, an AI agent should provide a rationale behind decisions surface assumptions, and trade-offs.

Context awareness and tool orchestration are what separate an agent from a prompt template. A skill can ship intent alignment and explainability in plain markdown, but state across steps and the ability to chain tools require a runtime. That’s why Babich’s specs include Boundaries sections and “When Not To Use It” blocks: a stateful, tool-using program needs guardrails that a one-shot prompt does not.

If you haven’t built one yet, his five specs—Research Synthesizer, Competitor Intelligence, Problem Definition, Idea Generation, UX Flow Designer—are a clean starter pack. Pick the one closest to a workflow you already do by hand, and notice how much of the spec is about what the agent will not do.

Tommy Geoco’s $13,100 OpenClaw harness, ninety days in, is one way to build a personal AI agent. Anton Sten went the other way. He tried OpenClaw and Hermes, found the setup was “days, sometimes weeks, for minutes of return,” and built something smaller. Five Claude Code instances on a Mac mini, named after Suits characters, each handling one role. Architecture is a shared repo and a pile of markdown files. That’s it. Most AI-agent posts pitch what Sten calls “a team of bots that runs your business while you sleep.” His basement firm is the inversion.

Sten on what he actually wanted from his agents:

What I actually wanted was smaller. A handful of tools, each with a narrow job, that I could build in an afternoon and shape around how I actually work. So that’s what I did.

The names of his AI agents are from the show Suits (with Wendy borrowed from Billions), picked so the show’s personalities double as memory aids for each agent’s job. Harvey handles contracts and pricing. Donna takes Harvey’s notes and drafts the emails and follow-ups. Mike stores what Sten would otherwise forget. Louis worries about money. Wendy reads the others’ logs and points out where they’re slipping.

Sten on the autonomous-revenue pitch:

The team in my basement isn’t running anything autonomously. They don’t make decisions for me. If I unplugged the Mac mini tomorrow, my business would keep running. The conflation in the current AI conversation — between playing and building a thing that prints money — is the part I find a bit tiring. They’re treated as the same activity, when they’re almost opposites.

Sten’s right that the autonomous-revenue pitch is a fantasy. Less right on the binary that follows. Geoco’s harness is doing meeting prep, ingesting his survey research, and distributing his content across ten platforms while he sleeps. That counts as “running while you sleep,” and his $50,000 in sponsorship revenue from one survey project isn’t trivial. Play and revenue can sit on the same side. What matters is whether the human stays in the loop. Geoco does, and so does Sten.

The shape of what they’re building is also the same. The Harvey-to-Donna handoff Sten uses most and Geoco’s survey-prep loop are both the specialization-is-the-whole-game pattern: narrow specialists, human in the loop, work compounding into the system. Sten calls it play and Geoco calls it work. The architecture underneath does the same job either way.

Sten on practice:

I’d argue this is the business case for designers right now. Not the agents specifically — the playing. Because in a year or two, every job worth having is going to assume you understand how these tools work, and the only way to understand them is to spend time in them when nothing’s on the line.

The people who’ll do interesting work with this stuff in two years are the ones playing with it badly today.

Geoco is what Sten’s last sentence predicts. The person playing badly today is the person doing interesting work in two years. Sten describes that person as hypothetical. Geoco isn’t.

Tommy Geoco spent ninety days and $13,100 tinkering with OpenClaw. His agent runs his capture loop, prepares his meetings, codes the survey for the state-of-prototyping report his studio shipped, and distributes his content across ten platforms. Tom describes the harness like this:

When you install OpenClaw, it is like a starter kit project car. It is a car frame with a swappable engine. The engine being any AI model you choose to use. It is basically a folder that you install onto your computer that contains about seven markdown files. […] When you stop thinking of a custom agent as just a chatbot and start thinking of it like an operating system, some useful questions are going to start to pop up like where does the memory live? What is the source of truth? How do I enforce my rules better? What should stay manual?

The seven files are plain text. soul.md holds the agent’s voice and judgment, agents.md defines permissions, memory.md handles long-term recall, and four others cover identity, the user, tool instructions, and a heartbeat. Tom layers an Obsidian vault on top as long-term knowledge and Slack as the chat surface. Tom on what actually limits an agent:

The agent’s limitations aren’t just about the model. They’re a lot more about the system that you have built around it because you can’t control the quality of the model, but you can control the quality of the system. […] The most important part of my setup is the knowledge vault. This is my alternate memory, and it is built around the work that I actually do.

Geoco says curation is what keeps the whole thing from drifting. The agent runs the loops on top of a vault Geoco curates, and the taste lives with him; the model itself is interchangeable. The challenging part is somewhere else entirely:

The most challenging part of this whole thing is the unlearning. Many of us have old habits that have calcified into our brain. It is why my 17-year-old is able to run laps around us. He has no baggage about how things are supposed to work.

Geoco is right that the unlearning is where the difficulty lives. The harness is just markdown and the model is rented; the orchestration skill Benhur Senabathi described as what designers actually picked up in 2025 is what you practice through the unlearning. Geoco closes the video by saying nobody’s harness is right and everybody’s works for them, which sounds about right to me too.

Jake Albaugh wrote a piece on X called “Design is the work” that splits design from the artifacts it produces. Mocks, prototypes, screens, guidelines: those are outputs. Design itself, in his telling, is the upstream act of intent: figuring out what something should be and why, before anyone makes it. Bingo. That distinction matters now because AI is very good at the artifact and unable to do the deciding:

AI cannot do that part. You intend to do something that has not yet happened. You have to bring those parameters to the table to do anything novel. AI doesn’t know your constraints. It doesn’t know your strategy. It doesn’t know what moment in the market you’re in, what your team is trying to prove, or what your customers actually need versus what they’ve said they want. The expectation — the definition of what good looks like — is something only you can provide. AI’s job is to meet that expectation. Not to define it.

The piece made the case that intentionality has to come before execution and that AI changes neither requirement. The closer is where it gets interesting. After all that, Albaugh tells the reader he used AI to draft the essay:

It may surprise you to learn that I used AI to write this. The structure, the sentences, a lot of the phrasing — generated. But the argument existed before any of it. I knew what I was trying to say. I knew what examples mattered and which ones were wrong. I knew when a paragraph was close but not quite right, and I revised toward a target I’d already defined. […] That’s the point. The tools changed. The work didn’t. Design is the process. Design is the intentionality.

It’s a risky reveal. Most readers will read it as self-undermining at first. But the argument and the artifact are doing the same job: Albaugh had a target, and he used AI to reach it. The fact that the prose was generated is exactly why it matters that the argument wasn’t. He knew which examples belonged in the piece and which ones to throw out. The model couldn’t have known that either way, because the criteria for “good” didn’t exist anywhere outside his head until he wrote them down.

Karri Saarinen made a version of this same split when he argued that output isn’t design. The hard part is understanding the problem well enough to know what should exist at all.

Maggie Appleton, staff research engineer at GitHub Next, wrote up her recent talk on agentic AI productivity. (Video here if you’d rather watch.) Her central claim comes early:

I call it this “one man, a two dozen claudes” theory of the future. The pitch here is that one person with a fleet of agents will do the work of an entire team of developers. The main problem with this dream is it assumes software is made by one person. All these tools are single player interfaces. […] Software is not made by one person in a vacuum. It’s a team sport. Everyone building it needs to agree on what they’re building and why.

The single-player critique is the missing piece in most AI productivity takes. Most demos of a coding agent show one engineer at a terminal. Designers face the same situation with AI prompt-to-code tools. Collaborating isn’t as easy as sharing a Figma link. That’s the actual gap in current tooling, and it’s downstream of the single-player assumption.

Appleton’s second move:

Implementation is rapidly becoming a solved problem, right? Writing code is now fast, it’s getting cheap, and quality is going up and to the right. The hard question is no longer how to build it. It’s should we build it. Agreeing on what to build is the new bottleneck. […] When production is cheap, opportunity cost becomes the real cost. You can’t build everything, and whatever you pick comes at the cost of everything else.

When production is cheap, picking what to make becomes the whole job. The cost difference between two engineering paths is now nearly zero, so the choice between them carries all the weight. Teams that miss this will end up shipping volume and mistaking it for productivity.

A talk like this could be about tooling, and Appleton does walk through Ace, GitHub Next’s prototype multiplayer workspace, in some detail. But the more important argument is about what you do with the hours you free up. Going faster is not the prize. Appleton:

We have an opportunity to not just go faster and build a giant pile of the same crappy software. But instead to make much better software through more rigorous critical thinking and better alignment in the planning stage. By doing more exploration, more research, and thinking through problems more deeply than we could have before.

The reclaimed hours are an opportunity, but they are also a test. Do you spend them shipping more, or do you spend them shipping better? The first answer gets you the giant pile. The second takes work the agents cannot do for you.

Appleton closes on craft:

Many people are now realising that in a world of fast, cheap software, quality becomes the new differentiator. The bar is being set much higher. Craftsmanship is what will set you apart from the vibe-coded slop. But craft still costs time and energy. It is not free, and in order to buy the time and energy for it, you need to do fewer things better, which requires strong alignment.

Andy Matuschak describes two accidental tyrannies that have shaped software for forty years: the application model that traps software in one-size-fits-all packages, and programming as a specialization that crowds out non-programmers from inventing interfaces. He thinks coding agents could break both, and he’s already seeing it happen with the designers he works with:

I’ve been seeing it. I spent 2025 collaborating with two talented designers. Their story with coding agents this past year has been truly wild. I think the impact on my collaborators has been much greater than the impact on me, despite the fact that I’m now building perhaps ten times the speed.

Unlike me, these two started their careers in design and spent their formative years in the arts culture. They can program a bit, but the process was really slow and difficult enough to pose a significant barrier. At the start of 2025, coding models could implement small one-off design ideas—but their outputs would just fall apart after a couple of iterations. By the end of the year, my collaborators were routinely prototyping novel interface ideas and sustaining that iteration across weeks.

“The impact on my collaborators has been much greater than the impact on me.” Matuschak is moving ten times faster, and he still thinks his designers are the ones whose careers just turned over. That observation is rare from the person on the receiving end of the bigger gain in raw output.

Matuschak’s diagnosis of why the old arrangement was such a trap for designers:

Non-programming designers are trying to invent something in an interactive medium without being able to make something meaningfully interactive. So much of invention is about intimacy with the materials, tight feedback, sensitive observation, and authentic use. So it’s a catch-22: to enter into proper dialogue with their medium, a non-programmer needs to get help from a programmer. That generally requires the idea to be at least somewhat legible and compelling. But if they’re doing something truly novel, they often can’t make it legible and compelling without being in that close dialogue with their medium.

The old design-engineering separation trapped designers in a less obvious way. They often couldn’t even tell whether their ideas were brilliant, because they couldn’t get their hands on the material to find out. You can’t iterate on a feeling. You have to push something around until it pushes back. For most of my career, designers did that pushing in flat mockups and click-through prototypes, working through dynamic behavior they had never actually felt. Of course the technical ideas fell short. The designers themselves hadn’t felt the thing yet either.

That’s the asymmetry coding agents collapse. The loop between “I have an inkling” and “I am tinkering with a working version of the inkling” has finally closed for non-developers. They still can’t and mostly shouldn’t ship production code, but they don’t need to. The prototype is enough to do the design work. Once the gatekeeping melts, the next question is institutional: where does the next generation of interface inventors come from? Matuschak’s answer:

So, what now? We’ve spent decades building HCI programs that mostly look like computer science departments with design electives. But if we’re moving toward a world where invention is bottlenecked more on imagination than on technical expertise, we may have that backwards. We may need programs that look a little more like art school with technical electives—learning to develop ideas from intuition before being able to express them precisely, to discover by playing with the material.

Humans are the bread in the sandwich, and the AI is in the middle.

That’s Dan Shipper on his podcast AI & I, talking with Every’s Kieran Klaassen, the engineer behind the compound engineering plugin. They’re working out where humans actually belong in an AI-driven workflow. It’s the same split showing up on the design side.

Klaassen, on the polish step at the end of the work:

The other moment comes at the end. Something comes out. How do you validate it? Well, it’s already tested—browser automated testing has clicked through everything, all the requirements are clearly specified, and it says everything works. But the beauty comes in when a human looks at it, clicks around, and has a feel for it: “Oh, this doesn’t feel right. We can polish it. We can make it better. There’s something still missing. We can make the design better.” […] all the way at the end, when everything is done, you can elevate everything and make it even better. And I think we need to do that, because if we don’t, it will all be slop—all the same. It’s very important to make it feel great because the bar is high, and the bar will always get higher.

“It will all be slop” is the line every team should have taped to a monitor. A passing test suite and a green PR don’t tell you whether the thing is actually any good. That judgment still lives with a human at the end of the workflow. Klaassen is correct that the bar keeps moving up, not down, and the teams who treat the polish step as optional are the ones whose products will look interchangeable in twelve months.

Klaassen, on the art-and-ownership argument:

But I do think that in the end, if you ship something—if you make a statement in the world—and you want it to be your own, you have to say yes or no at some point. You cannot fully automate everything. It’s a bit like making art. If you want it to be yours, it needs to come from you or somehow be connected. So I believe having those moments where you decide—where you choose what you enjoy—is so important. That’s why it’s so important to do things you enjoy and love.

Whatever your version of beautiful is, that’s the bread. Everything else is filling.

Karri Saarinen, Linear’s co-founder, calls out the confusion that most of the new design tooling is built on top of:

Design keeps being misunderstood in our industry. New tools keep promising to generate interfaces faster, move words to product instantly, or collapse design directly into code. The assumption behind them is clear: that design is the act of producing. That is the misunderstanding. The hard part of design is rarely generating the form. It is understanding the problem well enough to know what and how something should exist at all.

What I appreciate about Saarinen’s argument is that he doesn’t stop at the diagnosis. He reaches for Christopher Alexander’s Notes on the Synthesis of Form and recovers a vocabulary term the industry has been missing:

Christopher Alexander came closer than anyone to naming this clearly. In Notes on the Synthesis of Form, he describes design as the search for a good fit between a form and its context. Context, in his sense, is not a background condition. It is the full set of forces that make a problem what it is: human needs, technical constraints, conflicting requirements, habits, edge cases, and relationships that are easy to miss until you spend time with them. Bad design appears where those forces remain unresolved. Good design appears where those misfits have been worked through carefully.

Context as forces, not background. The current generation of prompt-to-code tools, including Lovable, Figma Make, and Claude Design, is very good at producing a plausible form against a thin slice of context. Saarinen describes the symptom directly:

You can already see the result in products that look polished, ambitious, and impressive at first glance, but begin to unravel the moment you actually use them. They feel brittle, poorly integrated, and full of decisions that were never fully worked through. The form is there. The fit is not.

That same bottleneck shows up on the workflow side: production speeds up, judgment doesn’t.

Saarinen’s closer:

The risk is mistaking generated form for solved problems.

That is the mistake to watch for, in your own work and on your team. Design is what happens when someone takes the time to understand the forces and works the misfits out of the form.

“Taste is the scarce thing” has become shorthand for what designers still own in the AI era. I’ve written about it in the abstract more than once. Chris R Becker, writing for UX Collective, opens with an old Marshall McLuhan-era line—“we shape our tools and then our tools shape us”—and then shows how to keeping doing the shaping.

Becker cites the Steve Jobs-attributed 10-80-10 rule:

Start away from any AI. Use the 10–80–10 rule. 10% away thinking, defining, establishing vision. 80% making use of AI to assist the vision. 10% away from AI critiquing, testing, and evaluating the solution.

The bookends are the work. Both 10% slots sit explicitly away from the model, which is another way of saying they’re the judgment layer. The first defines what good looks like before inviting AI in. The second evaluates what came out. AI collapses the cost of the 80%, which is the whole productivity story. But that collapse means the bookends are no longer preamble and postscript. They’re most of the job.

Becker gets at why the closing 10% matters:

The authority bestowed on institutions, educators, and SMEs (subject matter experts) is being absorbed by AI and spread thin like butter on toast. An AI appears to slather knowledge evenly, but the quality of the knowledge butter is deliberately made opaque.

AI output arrives looking uniformly authoritative, the same confident tone whether the underlying source is a peer-reviewed paper or a forum post from 2013. Provenance gets flattened. Without a prior standard to judge against, the designer reviewing output has nothing to push back on. That’s Becker’s larger point:

The irony, I suppose, is that Designers are, hopefully, trained not to be “yes men” but rather to ask hard questions, challenge the prevailing motivations of business over our users, and, most importantly, find the root cause of the problem, rather than just the surface reaction. AI, unfortunately, is not built to push back; it will not say… “I don’t know,” or “I think that is a bad idea,” or “what if you did this… instead,” or “I understand YOU (CEO) wants this feature, but the user research and ‘our users’ want something different.” AI is designed to serve, and in the hands of people in an organization who are looking for the least amount of pushback, it is a recipe for deep institutional implementation and, frankly, a lot of bad ideas, fast.

“A recipe for deep institutional implementation.” A sycophantic tool plus an organization that wants frictionless agreement equals speed in the wrong direction. The 10-80-10 rule is a personal discipline. What’s still unresolved is how teams build that discipline into the process before the wrong direction becomes the default.

When generation gets cheap, craft becomes judgment. Raj Nandan Sharma, writing on his blog, puts it bluntly:

Before AI, mediocre work often reflected a lack of time, resources, or execution skill. Today mediocre work often means something else: the person stopped at the first acceptable draft. That is the economic shift AI introduces. It compresses the cost of first drafts, which means the value moves downstream… In other words, the scarce skill is not generation. It is refusal.

Refusal—knowing what to throw out and why—is what’s scarce in a world where anyone can generate ten competent drafts before lunch.

But Sharma doesn’t stop there. He warns that elevating taste alone can quietly corner humans into an end-of-pipeline selector role:

There is a strong version of the “taste matters” argument that quietly pushes humans into a narrow role. In that version, AI generates many outputs and the human stands at the end of the pipeline selecting the best one. That is a useful role, but it is also too small… The warning is not that taste has no value. It does. The warning is that taste without authorship, stake, or construction can become a narrow and eventually fragile role.

The warning Sharma adds is the part the “taste is the moat” conversation tends to skip. Refusal without authorship is still selector work, and selector work has a ceiling. The durable position pairs refined taste with authorship—owning what ships and the stake for getting it wrong.

Two podcast conversations with frontier-lab design leaders on what designing at an AI lab looks like day-to-day. I previously linked to Lenny Rachitsky’s interview with Jenny Wen, head of design for Claude, where she described a redistribution of designer hours: less mocking, more pairing with engineers, a sliver of direct implementation. The activities themselves still look like design.

Ian Silber, head of product design at OpenAI, on Michael Riddering’s Dive Club, describes work that doesn’t fit the same list:

Designers working on this are hopefully spending a lot less time in Figma or whatever tool you use to draw pixels, and more time really thinking about how you interact with this thing, and the fact that the model really is the core product.

Silber’s concrete example is onboarding. Instead of building a first-run tutorial, his team shapes what the model already knows about the person:

We have this super intelligent model that could probably do a much better job trying to understand what this person’s goals are […] We’re really stripping back a lot of what you might traditionally do and trying to say, “Well, actually […] let’s think about like how we should give this context to the model that this person is brand new and they might need some handholding.”

The traditional response adds UI around the problem. Silber’s team takes it out and gives the model enough context to meet the user where they are.

That kind of work needs its own scaffolding, and OpenAI is building it:

We have a whole system called the Dynamic User Interface Library, which allows us to design things that the model can then interpret.

Primitives the model composes at runtime, shaped by system prompts and context rather than drawn flow by flow. Wen is describing a redistribution of designer hours inside activities that still look recognizable. Silber is describing activities that don’t quite have names yet. And yes, that is still design.

The gap between an AI-produced prototype and a shippable product has a shape. Most of us assume it’s the visual 20%: the polish AI output drifts on. Chad Johnson’s case is that the 20% is the trivial part, and the real gap sits upstream of everything visible.

Chad Johnson, writing in his newsletter:

The deeper issue was that nobody had asked whether a prototype was even the right artifact to produce at that stage. The PM had made three assumptions about user intent that we hadn’t validated. They’d skipped past a critical question about whether this flow needed to exist at all, or whether the real problem was upstream in the information architecture. They’d built a beautiful answer to a question nobody had confirmed was worth asking. That’s the part that stuck with me. Not the visual gaps. The thinking gaps.

That lines up with what I’ve been calling C+ out of the box: artifacts that read well and seem credible until you apply critical thinking. Johnson gets specific about what’s actually missing, and none of it is visual: the assumption nobody validated, the upstream question nobody asked. The interface was fine. The thinking was absent from the (probably) AI-generated PRD.

Johnson again:

…design production got democratized, but design judgment didn’t. Anyone can make something now. Almost nobody new learned how to think well about what should be made, why, and for whom. And that gap, between what’s possible to produce and what’s actually been thought through, is now the entire playing field for our profession. Designers aren’t becoming obsolete. They’re becoming stewards.

Judgment still takes years to build, and no tool compresses that.

The last 20% is rarely the gap that matters. The first question—should we build this?—almost always is. Very few teams have the muscle to ask it.

I’ve written that AI-era design work reduces to taste and judgment. Elizabeth Goodspeed’s case for designer-writers gets there from a different direction.

Elizabeth Goodspeed, writing for It’s Nice That:

You can get away with a lot in design: conceptual ideas are able to sit inside a visual piece of work without ever being fully spelled out. They’re gestured at rather than articulated. Writing forces you to figure out exactly what your idea is; if it isn’t working, you’ll know immediately. Where design is like a ballet – implicit ideas carried through form – then writing is closer to a theatre – your thinking has to be explicitly spoken.

Goodspeed’s point is that design lets you gesture at an idea without ever articulating it, and writing forces you to name it. A designer who can’t explain why a choice works has taste they can’t grow or pass on.

Goodspeed’s second point goes further:

Writing is to graphic design what clay is to pottery. It’s the material designer shape and massage into form. To work with text well, you have to really be able to read and understand what you’re setting – not just how it looks and basics like not hyphenating a word in a bad spot, but what it means on a deeper level. Just as reading makes you a better writer, writing makes you a better reader.

Product designers don’t usually think of themselves as writers. But user stories are writing, and articulating what a user should be able to do through an experience and why is essential.

Worth reading in full. She makes writing feel like a design discipline.

Every few weeks, another essay or YouTube video announces that AI has killed craft. One of my favorite designers writing about design, Christopher Butler, goes the other way:

No knowledge I possess about design—the incorporeal understanding that makes what I create better than an off-the-shelf template or something done by someone without my experience—is made irrelevant by AI. Nor is it contradicted by my use of AI tools. Structure still communicates before content. Visual hierarchy still guides attention. Negative space still creates rhythm. These principles don’t vanish because I’m working through AI rather than directly manipulating pixels. The craft migrates to a different level of abstraction. But it remains craft.

Butler’s claim is that the principles don’t vanish; they operate at a higher altitude. The unfinished part is naming where that altitude actually is. For product designers, it’s concept and hierarchy: the decisions that require knowing the user and the stake someone is willing to carry. The generated layout and the choice of components are still outputs. What’s left of design is the judgment that picks between them.

Butler’s sharper line is the binary between consumption and practice:

Someone who generates an interface with AI and calls it done isn’t practicing craft. They’re consuming convenience. Someone who generates an interface, inspects it, questions what it’s actually communicating, refines the structure, generates again, compares variations, understands why one serves the user better than another—they’re practicing craft. They’re building knowledge through iteration. The tool doesn’t determine whether you’re working with craft. Your approach does.

That’s Jiro Ono’s shokunin applied to interfaces: craft as lifelong practice, not manual labor. A camera doesn’t take a picture, and a model doesn’t make a design. That decision is the craft.

Butler’s argument reassures me. What worries me is how optional that decision is becoming. The output already looks finished. The designers who keep asking why one version serves the user better than another will still be designers in five years. The rest may still have jobs, as operators of a tool doing the work their taste used to do.

Specialization is the whole game. Give an agent a specific role and clear constraints, and the quality of the output changes completely. I’ve been learning this firsthand with Claude Code skills.

Marie Claire Dean took that principle and scaled it into an open-source system called Designpowers. Her reasoning:

Most AI tools give you one assistant. You ask it something, it answers, and you figure out what to do next. That’s not how design teams work.

Design teams work because a strategist thinks differently from a visual designer, who thinks differently from a content writer, who thinks differently from someone doing accessibility review. The handoffs between those perspectives are where the work gets better. The friction is productive.

Her team of ten covers the full pipeline from discovery through shipping, with dedicated specialists for strategy, visual design, content, motion, accessibility, and critique. All sharing one design state document, with the human directing.

On what she learned building it:

The act of encoding a design process forces you to decide what the handoffs actually are. When does strategy end and visual design begin? What does the content writer need from the strategist before they can start? What happens when the accessibility reviewer and the design critic disagree?

That’s the same clarity I’ve found writing Claude Code skills: what does this agent need to know, and where does its scope end? On where the human stays essential:

The idea is simple: agents can verify that a design is correct, aligned to the brief, accessible, consistent. They can’t tell you whether it’s beautiful. That’s your job.

The full system is on GitHub.

I’ve watched design team values die in a Confluence page. The offsite happens, the Post-Its get transcribed, the principles get written up with care, and then everyone goes back to their desks and ships exactly the way they did before. I’ve seen it with product principles and brand values too. The deck gets built, implementation starts, and the deck gets forgotten.

Vitaly Friedman, writing for Smashing Magazine, on why this matters more than ever:

We often see design principles as rigid guidelines that dictate design decisions. But actually, they are an incredible tool to rally the team around a shared purpose and document the values and beliefs that an organization embodies. They align teams and inform decision-making. They also keep us afloat amidst all the hype, big assumptions, desire for faster delivery, and AI workslop.

Friedman again:

In times when we can generate any passable design and code within minutes, we need to decide better what’s worth designing and building — and what values we want our products to embody. It’s similar to voice and tone. You might not design it intentionally, but then end users will define it for you. And so, without principles, many company initiatives are random, sporadic, ad-hoc — and feel vague, inconsistent, or simply dull to the outside world.

You might not write principles intentionally, but your product will have them anyway. The question is whether you chose them or inherited them by default.

Friedman closes with the part most teams skip:

Creating principles is only a small portion of the work; most work is about effectively sharing and embedding them. It’s difficult to get anywhere without finding ways to make design principles a default — by revisiting settings, templates, naming conventions, and output. Principles help avoid endless discussions that often stem from personal preferences or taste. But design should not be a matter of taste; it must be guided by our goals and values.

Creating principles feels productive. But alignment without embedding is a Confluence page nobody opens twice. Principles have to show up in the Figma component library, the ticket template, the review rubric. They have to be repeated so that they are ingrained. They have to become the path of least resistance.