All 6 steps are wrong.

Goal definition is way down at step 5. Why do you even care about doing something even before you know the goal?

Why does step 6 has word "urgency" in it, as if it applies to all goals?

Getting more fundamental, why do you need to go through any of this at all? What happens if you don't do all of this? What's the cost-benefit analysis of doing all this and not doing?

I think someone can follow "good practices" with a team and get to a bad place, especially with such a novel product (as AI coding agents).

But taking Claude Code as the product of this style of thinking -- who is Claude Code for? Is it for everyone in the world? Well, if you look at the feature velocity, it seems like the answer is intended to be yes ... Claude Code is trying to solve every problem in software development in the world, all at the same time.

So I question the "user model" here.

Here's another thing that is true about Claude Code: it's among the most inconsistent and buggy pieces of software I've ever encountered.

- You can move the cursor with the mouse in the composer, but not in AskUserQuestion?

- When agents spawn subagents, the model name is inherited from the main agent, and seemingly none of the (4! yes, 4!) subagent tools seem to get this right (except for Explore, which seems to be fixed to a weaker model)

- Sometimes, when my usage limit halts, my agents will pick up when it refreshes (within ~2 hours or something) ... other times, nope -- even within the usage limit?

This is a sampling of my own experiences using this thing frequently. Are these sorts of details not important? Maybe not: I'm not at the level of this team, and may never be.

But I think it's a reflection of agentic engineering ... a somewhat embarrassing one, from my perspective. It paints a picture of a team who can't quite get the details right, even with the assistance of purported extremely powerful AI tools, even internal ones which we don't have access to?

I think when people look back on 2025 -- Boris is going to have his name right there in the books ... Claude Code, coding agents -- Anthropic (& Boris + team) made the first move.

But now it's 2026, and people know how harnesses work, and heavy lies the crown.

Well, sounds like problems and products are largely solved.

60% of the time, the framework works, every time.

Bayes spotted in the wild.

Heaps of comments here but nobody has pointed out he defined the goal after defining the problem. That's cheating.

Step one is to define the goal. Then you work out how to reach the goal. (Gather information and form a hypothesis) Then you take steps toward the goal. (Test your hypothesis to make sure you stepped in the right direction.)

7. Reflect on that goal?

Translation: "I'm so wise guys, that I'm using epistemic humility principles to hide it"

Aka. business-as-usual being human.

Imagine it were so simple that we had not figured out 1-6 before in all of our research and management principles over the centuries?

Like as though it needs to be stated?

I mean ...

There's a very weird thing they like to do in Silicon Valley where they re-invent everything 'in other words' - this time, no fancy words.

Also, I would say he missed the 'iteration and experimentation part'.

If $400K/yer people need this level of guidance, something is wrong.

This whole things feels kind of wrong.

Imagine it were just some random Engineer, what would we think?

Imagine if a non-tech person wrote this.

why does boris have this urge to become an influencer