Profile picture of David Paul McQuiggin
David Paul McQuiggin
[Remote] .NET Lead Engineer | Solution Architect | CTO | Azure | Data | AI
Follow me
Generated by linktime
December 1, 2025
It has almost always been requirements or rather lack of clarity / not understanding actual business needs, that has caused projects to run into trouble, very rarely have I seen a technical implementation lead to a project failing. I've worked on projects with Startup Founders, and also experienced Product Owners in established corporates, who were unable to express the business needs and context - a dev team can't build what the business cannot describe. AI can help with this. I've been building a framework for my own development, using Claude, Claude Code, using Agents, Skills etc. One of the most valuable aspects of this is an Agent + Skills to capture and document requirements, asking questions in a kind of 'Pair Programming for Product Owners' approach, that at each phase presents information gathered and prompts for validation, round-tripping until business context, scope and feature descriptions are as close to complete as possible, then creates and updates Epics and User Stories in Jira. Jira is then used as specifications for development using TDD in a workflow in Claude Code with Compound Engineering. The Product Owner Agent can be run multiple times during development, reading and understanding progress in Jira as the system is developed.
Stay updated
Subscribe to receive my future LinkedIn posts in your mailbox.

By clicking "Subscribe", you agree to receive emails from linktime.co.
You can unsubscribe at any time.

December 1, 2025
Sunday evening take: One thing I dislike about working in software development over all these years, is that so much time is spent arguing over software ideology, as if there is an absolute perfection or one true way. e.g. SOLID is guidance, to be taken under consideration, applicable in some scenarios and not in others, it is not the word of god / the one true way. Developers spend too much time fighting over their interpretation of what is basically other people's opinions, something they have read very recently in a blog or seen in a course, as if it is some sort of divine inspiration. They then point-score as to who has the most perfect understanding of the opinion of someone who wrote a book about their own experience, but has no idea of the realities of the project you are now working on. I have been in so many code reviews, where developers were obsessed with arguing over the minutiae of a particular line of code and how it does not meet framework guidelines / latest C# language syntax / a specific pattern in a book, that they completely missed that it did not actually meet the business requirements. Guidance such as SOLID, Clean Coding, DDD etc. is fine if you treat it in the same way as 'look both ways before crossing the road', but not 'you must spend 10 seconds when looking left, and no more than 1 second later, look right for 13 seconds, or a successful crossing of the road will be deemed inadmissible' Be pragmatic instead of dogmatic, is the best advice I can give, after 32 years of building systems.
21 comments
April 3, 2022