ONE ENGINEERING WORKFLOWDELIVERED PERSONALLY BY ALEXANDER
alexanderENGINEERING · AI WORKFLOWS · TRAININGRun the example ↓
FOR ENGINEERING LEADERS

A bug fix.
An agent patch.
Your review.

Start with one repeatable workflow: reproduce a bug, write the regression test, let an agent draft the fix, and have an engineer review it.

See the worked example ↓Download the code ↗

A synthetic JavaScript example. No sign-up or AI account needed.
Prepared with AI assistance; no client results or time savings are claimed.

THE WORKFLOW / BUG → REVIEWED PATCH
  1. 01
    Make the failure visible.

    A regression test reproduces the bug before the implementation changes.

  2. 02
    Give the agent boundaries.

    Repository instructions, the task contract and the commands to run.

  3. 03
    Ask for a minimal patch.

    Check the reported case and the surrounding behavior.

  4. 04
    Keep the merge decision human.

    Read the diff, run checks, question assumptions, record review and rework.

01 / RUN IT YOURSELF

Zero is a priority.
It is also falsy.

A ticket filter accepts priorities from 0 to 3. The starting implementation treats 0 as “no filter” and returns every ticket. Only an omitted priority should mean “no filter.” The regression test makes that distinction explicit.

Buggy starting point

return tickets.filter(ticket =>
  !priority ||
  ticket.priority === priority
);

The corrected comparison

return tickets.filter(ticket =>
  priority === undefined ||
  ticket.priority === priority
);

These checks execute locally in your browser. The buggy and corrected implementations were constructed for this example; this is not a recording of an autonomous agent run.

02 / THE ARTIFACTS

Enough context to reproduce.
Enough structure to review.

01 / REPOSITORY CONTEXT

Instructions the agent can follow.

The function contract, task prompt, scope boundaries and test command are in AGENTS.md. No dependencies, public-interface changes or automatic merges.

02 / REGRESSION TESTS

A failure you can verify.

The Node.js suite checks priority zero, nonzero priority, no filter, no matches, empty input and preservation of the input. The buggy version fails one of six tests; the correction passes all six.

03 / HUMAN REVIEW

The checklist after green tests.

Read the diff, confirm the contract and check neighboring behavior. The review checklist includes what a real repository still needs: its integration, lint and security checks.

04 / MEASUREMENT

Count the whole effort.

The blank scorecard separates reproduction, context, generation, testing, review and rework. Compare total effort and tool cost with similar work done your current way.

Run the downloaded example with Node.js 18+

# After unzipping, in the example directory:
BUGGY=1 node --test workflow.test.mjs  # one failure expected
node --test workflow.test.mjs          # six passes expected

The download includes PowerShell instructions. This small pure function does not model the complexity of a production repository or establish a productivity gain.

Download the complete example ↗
03 / BRING IT TO YOUR TEAM

One workflow.
In your repository.

I’m Alexander, an engineer with 15+ years in production software. I work with your team to implement this workflow on an agreed bug-fix task, adapt the repository instructions, establish the review checks and teach the team to run it. We record the full effort, including review and rework, before deciding whether to extend it.

You keep the repository instructions, regression-test pattern, review checklist, measurement scorecard and handover notes. Access, approved tools, acceptance criteria, schedule and fees are agreed in writing before work starts.

Discuss one engineering workflow ↗Read the example notes ↗

A 20-minute video call with Alexander. Remote delivery in English, aligned with European working hours.