The AI-Native Way of Building

AI evolves software development lifecycle. The AI-Native way of building is about learning faster, structuring smarter, and engineering with context.”

TL;DR: The “spec-first” vs “ship-fast” debate is a dead end.
AI-native software teams don’t win by rejecting process—they win by evolving it.
They know when to explore freely, when to specify what they’ve learned into structure, and when to engineer for reliability.
The best teams move through three phases—Explore → Specify → Engineer—as one continuous learning loop.
That evolution, not blind speed or rigid control, defines the next era of software engineering.

---

Why Process Needs to Evolve

Every generation of engineers ends up arguing about process.
Waterfall vs Agile. Agile vs DevOps. DevOps vs Platform Teams.
Now it’s spec-first vs ship-fast.

I’ve seen both sides up close—in startups that treat specs like prison walls and in enterprises that believe documentation alone will save them.
AI is simply exposing a truth we’ve ignored for years: neither purity nor speed alone gets you to production.

The real divide isn’t between those who write specs and those who don’t.
It’s between teams that learn continuously and those that lock themselves into a phase they no longer need.

Process isn’t the enemy. But static process—the kind that can’t adapt to new understanding—is.
AI collapses that rigidity. It forces us to replace control with comprehension.

---

The False Choice Between Speed and Structure

The spec-first crowd sees AI as chaos waiting to happen.
They want guardrails, sign-offs, architecture documents before a single prompt runs.
They’ve seen vibe-coded systems collapse under their own complexity—nobody remembers why decisions were made, and debugging becomes archaeology.

But their cure is just as deadly.
They build clarity on top of guesses—specs that look perfect on paper but age faster than the sprint cycle.
The map becomes more sacred than the territory.

Then there’s the ship-fast camp—the cowboys of AI-assisted coding.
They believe velocity is the only truth: “Ship now, learn later.”
And to be fair, they do learn—usually through post-mortems.
Fast iteration teaches fast, but without consolidation it creates entropy.
Code becomes a collection of disconnected decisions with no shared understanding behind them.

So one camp moves too slowly to learn.
The other learns too quickly to remember.

---

The Hybrid That Actually Works

The companies that survive this transition won’t be those that pick a camp—
they’ll be the ones that design for learning velocity.

The teams that actually ship and sustain AI-native systems work in three modes that loop together:

1. Sandbox (Explore) — move fast, test ideas, break things intentionally.

2. Specification (Understand) — pause, extract the design that emerged, and write down what you now know.

3. Production (Engineer) — build it properly, with standards, testing, observability, and scale in mind.

It’s not a waterfall.
It’s a living system.
Each phase feeds the next, and teams flow between them as the context shifts.

---

Phase 1: Sandbox — Where Learning Happens Fast

This is where AI shines.
The sandbox is for discovery, not delivery.

When I explore a new integration or concept, I don’t start with diagrams.
I open a playground, throw prompts at it, and see what happens.
I might build three competing implementations in one afternoon—none are clean, but all teach me something.

Example:
You’re integrating a payment API.
Instead of writing specs first, you spin up three implementations—one using webhooks, one with polling, one with async queuing.
Each takes 20 minutes.
None are production-ready, but now you understand the trade-offs viscerally: latency vs reliability, complexity vs responsiveness, dependencies vs control.

The goal here isn’t correctness—it’s insight.
AI gives you infinite prototypes for almost free, so use them.

The exit signal:
Exploration has an expiry date.
When you start seeing patterns repeat—when chaos starts forming shape—that’s your cue to move on.

---

Phase 2: Specification — From Discovery to Definition

This is the most neglected step in AI-native workflows, and it’s where the magic actually happens.

Specification is when you stop “vibing”(coding) and start understanding what you built (with vibing).
You read the AI-generated code like an archaeologist, but you’re not digging for bugs—you’re digging for design.

What patterns emerged?
Why did this approach work better?
Where are the boundaries between modules that seem to form naturally?

Then you write that down, not as a bureaucratic spec, but as a specification of discovery into knowledge. This is a BIG subject, what really goes into your project as specifications, does it change depending on X, Y, Z? This will be another thing I want to write about.

What this looks like:

After exploring those three payment integrations, you sit down and write:

“We’re using asynchronous processing with webhook confirmations.
Why? Because third-party API latency can’t block user interactions—that kills UX.
Trade-off: handling delayed confirmations adds complexity, but responsive UI is worth it.
We’ll need retry logic, idempotency keys, and dead-letter queues for webhook failures.”

That’s a spec. But it’s not written before learning—it captures learning once you have it.

---

Phase 3: Production — Where Rigor Earns Its Keep

Now you engineer for real.
This is where reliability, scalability, and compliance matter.

You refactor AI-drafted code to match your team’s patterns.
You design observability, failure handling, retries, metrics.
You test the system not against “does it run?” but “does it behave as designed under stress?”
You harden security, define SLAs, automate everything you can.

And because you have specs from the specification phase, you can do all of that without losing speed.

What production-ready actually means:

That payment service gets rebuilt—possibly with AI assistance, but now guided by specs.
Error handling covers network failures, invalid webhooks, partial successes.
Security review catches potential vulnerabilities.
Performance testing validates behavior under load.
Observability tracks webhook delivery rates, retry patterns, dead-letter queue depths.

The result looks similar to the prototype but has fundamentally different quality characteristics.
You own the critical 30% that makes code reliable.

This is where AI becomes an accelerator instead of a liability.
You’re no longer prompting blindly—you’re guiding the model with context, structure, and constraints that come from real understanding.

---

Why This Works

Because it mirrors how humans actually learn.

We explore, we make sense of what we saw, then we apply that sense with discipline.
AI amplifies each of those stages, but it doesn’t remove the need for any of them.

Skip exploration, and you design in a vacuum.
Skip specification, and your team never shares the same mental model.
Skip engineering, and you ship prototypes pretending to be products.

The hybrid loop solves for all three. It’s not rebellion—it’s alignment with reality.

---

Integration Is Non-Negotiable

There’s one more truth most AI experiments ignore: you can’t build an AI-native workflow in isolation.

Your company already has Jira, GitHub, Slack, Notion, CI/CD pipelines, compliance processes, visibility rules.
The teams that make AI stick don’t build a parallel universe; they plug AI into the one that already exists.

That’s where ideas like the Model Context Protocol (MCP) matter—not as buzzwords, but as bridges.

What this means practically:

Your AI workflow needs to operate where your team already works:

• Specs sync with Jira or Linear—not locked in isolated markdown files.
  When the PM agent creates requirements, they become real tickets your project managers can see and track.
  When specs evolve, ticket descriptions update automatically.

• Dev agents create PRs in GitHub—going through the same code review process everyone else uses.
  No special approval paths. No black box commits.
  Every AI-generated change is visible, reviewable, and traceable.

• Updates flow to Slack—where everyone can see progress.
  “Payment service specification phase complete. Specs published to PROJ-1234. Ready for production engineering.”
  The team knows what’s happening without asking.

• Agents access company context—internal wikis, documentation repositories, design systems, API catalogs.
  They work with your patterns and standards, not generic examples from training data.

This isn’t optional infrastructure—it’s what prevents organizational antibodies from rejecting your AI workflow.

Specs, updates, and reviews should flow naturally across the same channels your teams already use.
Otherwise, the “AI workflow” becomes a black box—and black boxes don’t survive organizational politics, no matter how brilliant the tech inside them is.

---

When to Be in Each Mode

Explore when you’re in unknown territory:

• New APIs you’ve never touched

• Unfamiliar domains

• Multiple competing approaches to evaluate

• Learning how something works before committing architecture

Specify once you’ve seen enough patterns to form a mental model:

• An approach clearly works better than alternatives

• Multiple people need to work on related code

• You’re about to make architectural decisions with long-term impact

• The code needs to evolve and be maintained

Engineer when what you’re building actually matters:

• Shipping to users (real stakes, real consequences)

• Building systems that compose with other systems

• Code maintained by people other than the original author

• Reliability matters more than exploration speed

The art is knowing which mode you’re in, and not mixing them.
The biggest failures I’ve seen happen when teams vibe-code a production feature or write a 40-page spec for something they’ve never tested.

---

What the Best Teams Do

They move fast and document fast.
They let AI generate a dozen wrong answers so humans can find the right one faster.
They treat specifications as living artifacts that evolve with learning.
They keep their AI agents plugged into company systems so visibility and accountability never drop.
They don’t argue about process—they evolve it.

And most importantly: they understand that AI-native software development isn’t about replacing engineers—it’s about amplifying learning loops.

---

Bottom Line

You can’t spec your way to innovation.
You can’t vibe your way to reliability.

AI is forcing us to grow up as engineers.
We can’t cling to old frameworks or fake agility slogans.
We need to learn, specify, and engineer at the speed of understanding.

The teams that win aren’t choosing sides in the spec-first vs ship-fast debate.
They’re recognizing which phase they’re in and operating accordingly.
They’re integrating AI workflows into existing infrastructure instead of building isolated experiments.
They’re using frameworks like GitHub Spec Kit, BMAD-METHOD, and AWS AI-DLC not as religion but as adaptable patterns.

This philosophy is what I’m building into Fabriqa—an AI-native software factory designed around learning velocity and adaptive process.
It’s a space where human intent, specification, and code co-evolve through the Explore → Specify → Engineer loop.
I’m opening an early alpha soon and looking for opinionated, experienced engineers, PMs, and architects who want to shape how AI-native development actually works in practice.

If that sounds like you, I’d love your feedback—you can join the waitlist at fabriqa.ai or reach out directly.
Let’s build the next generation of engineering, together.