I just joined the waitlist for Tau Robotics (@taurobots): a humanoid robot that cleans your home, one hour for $30. Join with my referral link and I move up the list: https://t.co/O5b9g7uKHw
An engineer on our team built an AI merge advisory bot. It reads the full pipeline context - SonarQube, Dangerbot, all signals - then decides if the MR is safe to auto-approve
Documentation changes, version bumps, whitespace fixes. Stuff humans rubber-stamp anyway
The bot reviews itself. Literally installed on its own repo. Meta and beautiful
36 new dbt models shipped in one week across 10 teams. Revenue forecasting, verification TAT, fraud metrics, campaign analytics, data quality monitoring. That's a modern data team operating at velocity
We migrated our court file data pipelines using AI agents. Key learning: spend time upfront defining the project plan as a first-class deliverable. Specialized agents working in parallel on subtasks mirrors human org design and 10x'd throughput
We're now a multi anti-fraud product company
Our ML team built an SSN fraud signal that checks candidates against Checkr's historical records for inconsistent reuse across distinct identities
First customers already live, catching real cases
We just built a bot that finds stale feature flags, writes the cleanup code, opens the MR, addresses review comments, and archives the flag after a week in prod. Fully autonomous. We just review
The future is 🔥
A Node 16 to 20 upgrade had been on the roadmap for months
Previous estimates: 1-2 weeks of debugging cascading dependency failures
An engineer with AI-assisted debugging did it in 3 days
Code complete, green pipelines 🟢
Our ops team built a complex new capability as a POC without a single eng sprint
No roadmap changes. No dependency chains. Just the right tools and product leaders leaning in
That's the new playbook
Here's what I think most teams get wrong about AI coding tools: they optimize for model choice
But the real leverage is much more in the context you feed it --> your architecture decisions, your conventions, your hard-won engineering judgment encoded in years of code reviews
Wondering what would your company's engineering constitution look like?
We mined 1,865 code review comments across 535 merge requests and distilled 303 engineering principles into a constitution for our AI coding agents
Same model, same code
The difference is company-specific context
We call it the 🏛️ Checkr's Constitution 🏛️
Each principle is structured so agents can use it to write and review code against our actual standards and constraints
The result: agents with our Constitution catch real functional bugs that vanilla agents miss. Silent query parameter loss on redirects. localStorage crashes in restricted environments. Same model, same code; the only difference is Checkr-specific context
Building ML systems that run autonomously at scale, match billions of records, and catch problems before customers do
If that sounds like the kind of work you want, we're hiring in SF (link in the comments)
If you're targeting L5+ Data/ML roles, generic interview prep will get you to the final round
It won't get you through it
The difference is practiced live reasoning. Not more content consumption
Running a data team in 2026 means your analysts should be writing code, your ML engineers should understand the business, and your data engineers should be building for AI-first consumption
The walls between these roles are dissolving and that's a feature, not a bug
We're hiring a Senior Manager of Data Science on our team at Checkr to lead revenue data and SMB growth
This person will own the forecasting models and financial data products our leadership relies on, and run the data science push on our fastest-growing segment
If you've built data teams where shipping matters more than process, I'd love to talk
Link in comments