AI Team Builder
An interactive decision surface for thinking through who an AI-native team actually needs, what artifact they should ship first, and how the interview loop should reflect the real work.
I keep seeing the same hiring mistake in AI teams. The company knows it needs more product judgment or workflow ownership, but it describes the role too generically and ends up hiring for vibes instead of the actual bottleneck.
This tool is my attempt to make that decision more legible. Change the kind of team, the stage, the ambiguity, the proof standard, and the shipping pressure. The output shifts the team shape, the first hire, the artifact I would want to see, and the interview loop I would run.
AI Team Builder
A small simulator for one question I keep seeing: what kind of product person, workflow owner, or builder does this AI team actually need first?
Research-product bridge
The product question is not separate from the research question. The team needs someone who can translate model capability into a usable loop.
You need someone who can sit between research, evals, and product surface decisions instead of treating those as different worlds.
Pair with a research lead and an engineer who can quickly surface tools or prototypes.
Ship a constrained workflow demo plus a short evidence note showing what the model can and cannot do yet.
Test for hypothesis quality, eval taste, and the ability to make a fuzzy capability legible to non-research teammates.
Open with the gap between model capability and product legibility, then show how you would tighten it.
The team can get trapped in impressive capability demos that never become a stable product surface.