What 120 builders told us about build-then-fix

We ran the interviews before we wrote the product. The answer was the same almost every time.

Balagei G Nagarajan4 min read

We did not start with a product. We started with 120 conversations: developers, agency leads, internal automation owners, anyone shipping agents for real.

The Consensus from the Field

One answer came back again and again. The hardest part was not building the agent. It was discovering, after the build, that the agent broke in a way the team could have named on day one if anyone had asked the right question.

83% Put Build-Then-Fix First

Eighty-three percent of them put build-then-fix at the top of the list. Not model quality, not cost, not prompt wrangling. The cost of committing to a build and meeting the failures only in production.

That number is why Pavamana AI Labs exists, and why the product runs in the design phase instead of after it. We built for the problem people actually have, not the one that was easy to tool for.


Share

Join the discussion

Have a take, a war story, or a question? Sign in with GitHub to comment and react. Comments are powered by GitHub Discussions, ad-free and yours to moderate.

Continue Reading

Every article here documents a failure mode we've seen in production. Faultmap finds them before you ship.