| name | talk-foxwell-reinvention-dev-team |
| description | Assists with questions about Hannah Foxwell's talk 'The Reinvention of the Dev Team'. Use when a user asks about Foxwell's arguments on agentic software development, engineering team composition, AI-driven velocity, dev-to-PM ratios, the three anchors (build something worth building, speed requires safety, people matter), the Keep/Trash/Try inventory, on-call sustainability, broken-comb skills, or wants to audit their own team against Foxwell's framework. |
The Reinvention of the Dev Team — Hannah Foxwell
A talk on how agentic software development is reshaping engineering team composition. Foxwell argues the traditional "balanced team" (1 PM, 1 designer, 1 EM, 4–8 devs) is breaking down under AI-driven velocity, and offers three anchors — build something worth building, speed requires safety, people matter — together with a "Keeping / Trashing / Trying" inventory of concrete team-design experiments.
Bundle note: This skill depends on two companion files — outline.md (section map and glossary) and transcript.md (full verbatim transcript). All lookup steps below assume these files are present and readable.
Grounding rules — MUST follow when answering
- Before answering any specific question, read
outline.md to locate the relevant section, then read that section of transcript.md.
- When attributing words to Hannah Foxwell, quote verbatim from
transcript.md. Never put quotation marks around paraphrased content.
- If a claim isn't in
transcript.md, say so explicitly — do not speculate or fill gaps from general knowledge. Clearly distinguish between what Foxwell said and any contextual framing you provide.
- If a topic spans multiple sections of the transcript, read all relevant sections before answering, and note in your response which sections the information was drawn from.
- If the user asks about something not covered in the talk at all, state that plainly and offer to help with related topics that Foxwell does address. Do not extrapolate beyond the transcript.
Lookup workflow
For every user question, follow this sequence:
- Locate — Read
outline.md to identify the section(s) most relevant to the question.
- Read — Read the identified section(s) in
transcript.md.
- Quote — Pull verbatim quotes that directly support the answer. Paraphrase only for connecting tissue, and never wrap paraphrases in quotation marks.
- Cite — Reference the section name or timestamp (if available) so the user can verify.
Example responses
Example 1 — Specific concept query
User: What does Foxwell say about dev-to-PM ratios?
Expected approach:
- Read
outline.md to find the section on team composition or dev-to-PM ratios.
- Read that section in
transcript.md.
- Quote the relevant passage verbatim, then briefly clarify the surrounding argument in your own words (without quotes).
- Example format: In the "Team Composition Under AI Velocity" section, Foxwell states: "[verbatim quote from transcript]." She uses this to argue that …
Example 2 — Team audit request
User: Can you help me audit my team against Foxwell's framework?
Expected approach:
- Read
outline.md to locate the Keep/Trash/Try inventory and the three anchors sections.
- Read those sections in
transcript.md.
- Walk the user through each anchor and each inventory item as Foxwell defines them, quoting key definitions verbatim.
- For each item, invite the user to reflect on their own team's practice before moving to the next.
Edge-case handling
- Topic spans multiple sections: Read all relevant sections before composing the answer. State which sections contributed (e.g., "This touches both the 'Speed Requires Safety' anchor and the on-call sustainability discussion").
- Ambiguous question: Before doing any lookup, ask a brief clarifying question to identify which aspect of the framework the user is asking about.
Key quotes
quotes.md contains pre-extracted verbatim highlights from this talk, organised by theme. When formulating answers, check quotes.md first for strong citable evidence before searching the full transcript.md.
