212 lines
7.2 KiB
Markdown
212 lines
7.2 KiB
Markdown
# 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
|
|
|
|
1. **Walk through HN post draft** (10 min)
|
|
- Review each technical claim
|
|
- Identify any exaggerations or inaccuracies
|
|
- Discuss tone (authentic vs. marketing)
|
|
|
|
2. **Evidence collection** (10 min)
|
|
- Assign screenshots/benchmarks to gather
|
|
- Decide what to include in post vs. reserve for comments
|
|
- Prepare demo GIFs if needed
|
|
|
|
3. **Response preparation** (10 min)
|
|
- Review response templates for technical questions
|
|
- Identify questions Founding Engineer should answer directly
|
|
- Discuss escalation path for deep technical challenges
|
|
|
|
4. **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
|