I ship correctness, security, and performance fixes into established open-source codebases, and build local-first tools with the same verification discipline.
Portfolio · Writing · LinkedIn · Email
| PR | Project | What it changed | Merged |
|---|---|---|---|
| rosetta #320 | griddynamics/rosetta · 337★ | Removed quadratic backtracking from the PreToolUse dangerous-command matcher — O(n²) → O(n) in a security-critical hot path |
24 Aug 2026 |
| rosetta #319 | griddynamics/rosetta | Labelled bug / security. Removed dead team-authorization behaviour and hardened dataset lookup after review showed the policy I originally targeted was unreachable |
24 Aug 2026 |
| rosetta #322 | griddynamics/rosetta | CLI regression coverage for dataset-name resolution branches; two fixture gaps found in review were corrected and mutation-checked | 24 Aug 2026 |
| rosetta #299 | griddynamics/rosetta | Extended a dangerous-action guard to equivalent git branch force-delete forms without catching safe commands |
19 Aug 2026 |
| super-productivity #9619 | super-productivity · 21.5k★ | Kept section-visible task order synchronized with persistent Move Up/Down/To Top/To Bottom actions | 21 Aug 2026 |
The review record on #320 is the part worth reading. A Grid Dynamics code owner verified the change against the previous matcher across roughly 5.5 million inputs — 306,911 seeded fuzz cases, 5,229,042 exhaustive length-1–6 sequences, 56 crafted adversarial cases — then re-verified the corrected head across a further 1,645,410 differential cases. Zero divergences in both directions, on a harness he mutation-checked first so the zero means something. He reproduced the O(n²) → O(n) result, wrote that the approach was better than both directions he had suggested, and found the same bug class in four more patterns in the same file as a consequence. Read the thread.
Reviewed but not merged: OpenClaw #125740 was closed on 20 August 2026 without merge or recorded human approval. I do not present it as accepted.
How I write these: Pull request descriptions that survive review.
| Project | What it demonstrates | Inspect |
|---|---|---|
| Agent Session Bridge | ATIF v1.7 coding-agent trajectory interchange: namespaced fidelity/loss accounting, Claude Code normalization, OpenInference projection, and an explicit statement of what the format cannot do | Source · Open tasks |
| Validation Ledger | Evidence → hypothesis → decision traceability with explicit counterevidence, inspectable scoring, and a seeded differential test suite that checks the scoring model against an independent oracle | Source · Demo |
| BuildWorld AI | Deterministic graph simulation — cascades, sensitivity, reproducibility metadata, stability heuristics | Source · Demo |
| WeaveStudio | Local-first visual workflows with claim-to-source provenance, human review gates, and portable exports | Source · Demo |
- From Claude Code JSONL to ATIF v1.7: what actually survives an agent handoff? — trajectory portability, fidelity/loss accounting, and the boundary between a portable trajectory and native session resumption.
- Your AI agent finished the task. What did it actually prove? — separating artifact, behavioural, provenance, boundary, and independent evidence when agents do technical work.
- Pull request descriptions that survive review — the structure behind the PRs above, and why each heading exists.
I also keep a conservative external-corroboration record of reuse and critique that has not reached the merged-PR bar — self-reported, deliberately separated from the table above, and weaker evidence than anything in it.
This is an AI-assisted portfolio. I direct product strategy, requirements, scope boundaries, acceptance criteria, verification expectations, and public claims. AI systems assist with implementation, research, debugging, testing, and drafting; I review, revise, reject, validate, and take responsibility for what is published.
Commercial availability does not imply verified revenue, customers, active users, or completed acquisitions. Deterministic scores are heuristics, not certified predictions. Local-first storage is not automatically encrypted, durable, synchronized, or compliant.
The useful kind is specific: what breaks, what is confusing, which assumption is wrong, where a model creates false confidence, what you would remove, or what would stop you using the work. Issues are open on every repository above.