7.2 KiB
FRE-632-A2: Technical Review Checklist for Founding Engineer
Owner: CMO
Collaborator: Founding Engineer
Due: T-3 days before HN submission
Status: Ready to Start
Priority: High
Purpose
Ensure all technical claims in the HN Show HN post are accurate and defensible. HN audience includes sophisticated engineers who will challenge exaggerated or incorrect claims.
Technical Claims to Verify
1. Tauri Performance Claims
Claim: "Tauri + SolidJS = 50MB RAM, instant startup"
Questions for Founding Engineer:
- What is the actual RAM usage of Scripter desktop app vs. WriterDuet (Electron)?
- Do we have benchmark data? (screenshots from Activity Monitor, Task Manager, etc.)
- What is the startup time comparison?
- Are these numbers consistent across macOS, Windows, Linux?
Evidence Needed:
- Screenshot: Scripter RAM usage (macOS Activity Monitor or Windows Task Manager)
- Screenshot: WriterDuet RAM usage (for comparison)
- Startup time measurement (cold start to usable UI)
Risk Level: 🔴 HIGH (HN will fact-check this)
Fallback if challenged:
"Our measurements show ~50MB on macOS M1, ~70MB on Windows 11. Electron apps like WriterDuet typically use 400-600MB. Happy to share our benchmarking methodology."
2. CRDT Implementation
Claim: "WebSocket + CRDT for conflict-free real-time collaboration"
Questions for Founding Engineer:
- Which CRDT library/algorithm are we using? (Yjs, Automerge, custom?)
- How is conflict resolution handled?
- What is the latency for real-time sync?
- Have we tested with multiple simultaneous editors?
Evidence Needed:
- Brief technical explanation of CRDT approach
- Demo GIF showing two users editing same paragraph simultaneously
- Any performance metrics (sync latency, ops/second)
Risk Level: 🟡 MEDIUM (Technical audience will appreciate details)
Suggested Response Template:
"We use [CRDT library] for conflict-free editing. Each edit is an operation in the CRDT, which guarantees eventual consistency. Sync happens over WebSocket with [latency] ms round-trip. Happy to dive deeper into the implementation!"
3. Turso DB Setup
Claim: "Turso DB (SQLite at edge)"
Questions for Founding Engineer:
- How is Turso configured? (libSQL, HTTP API?)
- What's the edge location strategy?
- What are the performance characteristics vs. traditional SQLite or Firebase?
- Any replication lag concerns for real-time features?
Evidence Needed:
- Architecture diagram or description
- Query latency numbers (p50, p95, p99)
- Comparison to previous Firebase setup (if applicable)
Risk Level: 🟢 LOW (Turso is well-known, claims are modest)
Suggested Response Template:
"Turso gives us SQLite at the edge with libSQL. We're on the [region] edge location. Query latency is ~[X]ms p50, ~[Y]ms p95. Much better than our Firebase setup for [specific use case]."
4. SolidJS Performance
Claim: "SolidJS (faster than React, smaller bundle)"
Questions for Founding Engineer:
- What is the bundle size comparison? (Scripter vs. hypothetical React version)
- What performance metrics do we have? (Lighthouse, bundle analyzer)
- Why SolidJS over React/Svelte/Vue?
Evidence Needed:
- Bundle analyzer screenshot
- Lighthouse performance scores
- Brief comparison table (SolidJS vs. React bundle sizes)
Risk Level: 🟢 LOW (SolidJS performance is well-documented)
Suggested Response Template:
"SolidJS compiles to vanilla JS with no virtual DOM. Our bundle is [X]KB vs. ~[Y]KB for equivalent React app. Lighthouse performance score is [Z]. The fine-grained reactivity means updates only touch what changed."
5. AI Features
Claim: "AI writing assistant (scene continuation, character analysis, format fixing)"
Questions for Founding Engineer:
- Which AI models are we using? (GPT-4, Claude, custom fine-tuned?)
- How is AI integrated into the writing flow?
- What are the latency and cost characteristics?
- Any rate limiting or abuse prevention?
Evidence Needed:
- Demo GIF showing AI in action
- Brief description of AI architecture
- Sample AI outputs (scene continuation, character analysis)
Risk Level: 🟡 MEDIUM (AI skepticism on HN)
Suggested Response Template:
"We use [model] for AI features. It's opt-in and integrated into the writing flow - hit a button to get scene suggestions or character analysis. Not trying to replace writers, just augment. Latency is ~[X] seconds, cost is baked into Premium tier."
6. Real-Time Collaboration
Claim: "Real-time collaboration (like Google Docs for scripts)"
Questions for Founding Engineer:
- How many simultaneous collaborators are supported?
- What is the sync latency?
- How are conflicts resolved?
- Is there a video chat integration? (mentioned in some drafts)
Evidence Needed:
- Demo GIF showing multiple cursors/editors
- Max concurrent users tested
- Sync latency measurements
Risk Level: 🟡 MEDIUM (Collaboration is a key differentiator)
Suggested Response Template:
"We support [X] simultaneous editors with sub-[Y]ms sync latency. CRDT handles conflicts automatically. Video chat is [built-in via integration / coming soon]. Great for writers' rooms and co-writing sessions."
Review Meeting Agenda
Duration: 30-45 minutes
Attendees: CMO, Founding Engineer
Agenda Items
-
Walk through HN post draft (10 min)
- Review each technical claim
- Identify any exaggerations or inaccuracies
- Discuss tone (authentic vs. marketing)
-
Evidence collection (10 min)
- Assign screenshots/benchmarks to gather
- Decide what to include in post vs. reserve for comments
- Prepare demo GIFs if needed
-
Response preparation (10 min)
- Review response templates for technical questions
- Identify questions Founding Engineer should answer directly
- Discuss escalation path for deep technical challenges
-
Launch day coordination (10 min)
- Confirm Founding Engineer availability (10:30 AM - 2:30 PM PT)
- Set up communication channel (Slack/Discord)
- Define escalation triggers
Output Deliverables
After this review, we should have:
- Verified technical claims with accurate numbers
- Evidence gathered (screenshots, benchmarks, GIFs)
- Response templates refined for technical accuracy
- Launch day roles confirmed
- Communication channel set up
Timeline
| Milestone | Due Date | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Schedule review meeting | T-5 days | ⏳ Pending |
| Conduct technical review | T-4 days | ⏳ Pending |
| Gather evidence (screenshots, etc.) | T-3 days | ⏳ Pending |
| Finalize response templates | T-2 days | ⏳ Pending |
| Confirm launch day availability | T-1 day | ⏳ Pending |
Related Documents
/plans/hacker-news-showhn-submission.md- Full HN submission strategy/plans/FRE-632-hn-submission-checklist.md- Master execution checklist/plans/reddit-ama-execution-plan.md- Reddit AMA plan (similar technical review needed)
Next Action: Schedule 30-45 min technical review meeting with Founding Engineer