Patrick Morgan

Their words

there's so many different ways to get value from prototyping. I think when people hear prototyping, they jump immediately to highfidelity prototyping. And that's definitely not the way that I think about it or approach it

Their words

I think once you start to look at like what's possible in this environment, it starts to become more clear like the the b the benefits of giving yourself just enough distance. This would never go into our production like even close to our production product codebase, right?

Their words

many of those conventions don't serve the design process because they do things that intentionally make it hard for like the app to break, which you want in production, but you don't necessarily want in in prototype land

Their words

the agent can do it. It doesn't care. They're incredibly good translators. So if you just think of like production as one language of code that has its own set of constraints and semantics that are necessary for like a production app at scale

Their words

I'm no longer really handing off designs just to an engineer. I am pretty much preparing the design to be reinterpreted by the engineer's agent

Their words

even my workflow has changed so much just since the agentic coding harnesses released this ability to just directly give specific feedback on elements. That was a huge unlock

Their words

if you are working on something that is going to impact other people's work, that requires a higher level of review and more of a typical kind of dev workflow where we want to make sure that what you push isn't going to break stuff for other people. So my rule is you can you can break your own stuff, but you can't break other people's stuff

Their words

I cannot assume that the human user will be doing any of it. it's always the agent doing stuff on their behalf

Their words

I didn't want to mislead people by creating something that was like almost production fidelity but not actually production fidelity. and then I end up with this big communication gap of like people looking at something very high fidelity but it's not quite right and so they misinterpret

Their words

I would be probably having it before it actually generates any UI here at all. I would just have it describe these potential approaches to me in text and I would review it that way because it would be quicker for me to gro like that seems directionally right, that seems directionally wrong

Their words

They're pretty lightweight. They're not super specific in terms of like exact execution or anything. They're higher level principles. But because these live in the repo here alongside the prototypes, the agent can reference them in this way to be able to use them as a tool for design

Their words

doing that kind of work in like a static environment detached from the code was always way harder than it probably needed to be because you're think trying to think through like a ton of different combinations of states that are just hard to gro until you actually get something in some form of code to be able to understand whether your your idea even makes any sense at all