Technical Decision Making

claim element

Weighing alternatives explicitly, choosing the option that ages well rather than the one that ships fastest.

cited in: 5 proving documents · 1 companies
DynamoxGreenfield
Founding an analytics service by moving reporting off the transactional database
Founded a new reporting service that separates heavy analytical reads from the transactional database, resolving indicator timeouts, framing the OLTP-vs-OLAP trade-off, critically reviewing the architecture decision, and building the walking skeleton and its data layer.
DynamoxDistributed Systems
Designing a single computation path for a cross-service metric
Two services independently calculated the same customer-facing metric, causing inconsistent data. I redesigned the architecture so only one service owned the calculation while every other service simply signaled stale data.
DynamoxArchitecture
Designing the safety guarantees for an AI-orchestrated cleanup, not just automating the grind
Designed and built a Claude Code skill that safely orchestrates parallel agents to remove expired feature flags across a shared frontend and two backend services, closing a 36-subtask cleanup epic (24 feature flags plus 3 expired product tours and a legacy page, ~3,100 lines removed in one commit), with disjoint-file-set batching so agents can't collide, diff-against-baseline validation instead of absolute pass/fail, and an enforced two-repository deploy order so infrastructure changes can never precede the code that depends on them.
DynamoxSecurity
Making container and dependency hardening a standing practice, not an audit response
Turned container and dependency hardening into a standing quarterly practice across two backend services over four quarters, covering non-root runtimes, 135 CVEs flagged and all 7 rated critical remediated in the first pass, then a base-image and dependency overhaul that took the audit from 69 findings to 16, unfixable OS CVEs from 160 to 0, and the final image from 1.64 GB to 463 MB, with exploitability-based accepted risk documented rather than version numbers chased, and one self-inflicted rollout regression root-caused and fixed the same day.
DynamoxArchitecture & Product Scoping
Changing where a new state is handled, instead of teaching eight read paths about it
A new platform-wide asset state was specified as a rule that eight different read paths had to learn. I proposed applying it once at the write boundary instead, removing the asset from route scope and restoring it on reactivation, which made most of the original scope unnecessary and left the counters, reports, app sync and adherence untouched.