I work with two kinds of clients: founders building AI-powered products, and operators trying to automate workflows their teams are stuck doing by hand.


Most engagements start with a conversation. The work tends to be one of three things: helping you decide, helping you scope, or taking the technical side off your plate for a while.

how i work

I do my best work when I'm trusted to think, argue, and own the outcome. The clients I work well with want a partner who'll engage with the actual problem, push on assumptions, and take responsibility for the answer. A few things that come from that:

I'll tell you not to build it. If the thing isn't worth building, or you're solving the wrong problem, I'll say so.

I push back, and I expect you to push back on me. I have opinions and I back them. The arrangement only works if both sides argue honestly and the better idea wins.

I look for the risks and gaps you haven't named yet. The most useful thing I do early in a conversation is usually pointing at something you suspected but couldn't articulate, or surfacing a risk you hadn't seen yet. Most of what "first principles thinking" actually amounts to in practice is just being willing to look at what's really there.

I take responsibility, and I expect the authority that goes with it. Power and responsibility belong together. If you want me to own the technical outcome, I need room to make decisions. If you want to make the decisions yourself, I can execute against them, but that's a different kind of engagement.

I'm not the right fit for execution-only work. If you want someone to execute against tickets you've already defined, there are excellent people for that. I select for relationships that can become long-term, which means I select for clients who want a partner.

what i'm drawn to

I like work that takes drudgery off humans and gives them their attention back. Sometimes that's a tool that helps someone learn faster or make something they couldn't before. Sometimes it's mundane — generating document indices so a paralegal isn't reading 400 pages by hand. Both work for me. What matters is that a person somewhere ends up with more of their day to spend on something they actually want to be doing.

This is how I pick projects, not a pitch. Some pull at me and some don't. If yours does, we'll probably get along. If not, you'll want someone else, and it's better we figure that out fast.

engagements

Technical Strategy Session

You're trying to figure out where AI actually fits — in a product you're building, a workflow you want to automate, or a decision that's coming up.

  • Scope: 45-minute call + follow-up memo
  • Focus: What to stop, what to automate, what to build, and what it will cost
  • Output: 2-3 concrete next steps ranked by effort, upside, and risk

AI Product Roadmap

You think there's something here. Before you hire a team or burn time, pressure-test it.

  • Scope: ~2 weeks
  • Focus: Scope, architecture, stack, failure modes, and team shape
  • Output: Phased plan with trade-offs made explicit

Fractional CTO

You need senior technical judgment without the full-time hire.

  • Role: I own architecture, technical direction, and execution quality
  • Work: Design the system, build the hard parts, and manage engineers when needed
  • Engagement: Usually 10-20 hrs/week, 3-6 months

Most Fractional CTO engagements start with a Strategy Session or Roadmap.

If any of this fits something you're working on, send me an email or book a call.