# Qoder # What is Qoder > Learn how the Qoder product family brings agentic capabilities to software development, everyday work, and enterprise operations. Qoder is an **agentic platform for real work**. It brings AI into software development, terminal workflows, managed cloud execution, everyday productivity, and long-running digital roles. Instead of stopping at a suggestion or chat response, Qoder is designed around an end-to-end loop: understand the task and its context, plan the work, use tools to execute it, verify the result, and iterate toward the requested outcome. ## Core ideas ### Context engineering Give agents persistent context from code, knowledge, rules, tools, files, and the working environment so they can understand real tasks accurately and continuously. ### Agent autonomy Let agents understand intent, make decisions, use tools, and carry out multi-step work independently while retaining necessary review points. ### Goal-oriented loop Move from a stated goal through planning, execution, verification, and iteration until the requested deliverable is ready. These foundations support capabilities such as multi-agent collaboration, Memory and Rules, Skills and plugins, comprehensive context, and Repo Wiki. The exact experience depends on the Qoder product you use. ## One product family, several ways to work A dedicated agentic development workspace. Use Editor for in-flow assistance and Quest for long-running, multi-step delegation. Bring code suggestions, Ask, Agent, MCP, and project rules into supported JetBrains IDEs. Work with a coding agent from the terminal, and extend it into scripts, automation, and development workflows. Run managed agents through APIs by configuring Agents and Environments, starting Sessions, and streaming results. Delegate document, spreadsheet, research, browser, and desktop tasks and receive usable local deliverables. Create digital employees called Wakers for ongoing responsibilities, conversations, automations, and multi-stage flows. Monitor supported IDE and CLI tasks, review plans, and handle approvals away from your computer. Add centralized purchasing, members, identity, policies, knowledge, models, marketplace, audit, and other governance controls. ## Get started Choose a product based on your goal, then continue to its authoritative setup guide and complete a first useful task. Follow new features, improvements, and fixes across Qoder products. See how teams and individual builders use Qoder in real projects. Compare individual plans, then review Credits and billing behavior before estimating usage. # AMAP Automotive AI Native Engineering in Practice | Building Business Knowledge Engineering with Qoder > The AMAP Automotive AutoSDK team turned domain knowledge into an engineering asset that can be produced, tuned, automatically refreshed, and consumed with Qoder's knowledge engine, lifting the strict one-shot rate from 37.3% to 61.5%. Title: A Record of AI Native Evolution in AMAP Automotive Engineering | Building Business Knowledge Engineering with Qoder Author: AMAP Automotive Business Abstract: AMAP's enterprise business built a "production, tuning, refresh, consumption" system for business knowledge with Qoder's knowledge engine. The same class of error no longer happens twice, and the one-shot task pass rate rose from 37.3% to 61.5%. > *AutoSDK is AMAP's in-vehicle SDK product for the automotive industry.* It spans more than a million lines of code across twenty-odd Git repositories. With Qoder's knowledge engine, we built a "production, tuning, refresh, consumption" system for business knowledge. The same class of error no longer happens twice, and the one-shot task pass rate rose from 37.3% to 61.5%. The ceiling on AI Coding capability **lies not in the model itself, but in domain knowledge**. KoCo-Bench measurements bear this out: general-purpose programming clears 90% Pass\@1, while domain code generation reaches only 8.9%. Adding domain knowledge retrieval under an Agent paradigm lifts that to 34.2%, with a peak of 62.5% in the best track (arXiv:2601.13240v3). The practice of the AMAP Automotive AutoSDK team confirms this judgment. Our AI coding already runs as an engineering discipline, with requirement comprehension, solution design, code output, and self-testing connected end to end. Yet the stability of single-pass generation, or one-shot, remained the weak link, surfacing as four classes of failure: **exploration drift** (sinking deeper in the wrong direction), **generation deviation** (produced code diverging from the intended implementation), **architecture violation** (ignoring established layering and module conventions), and **constraint omission** (missing implicit dependencies or cross-module relationships). Root-cause analysis converged sharply: the meaning of business terms, the boundaries of module responsibility, the trade-offs behind historical decisions. None of this domain knowledge had ever been structured into a form AI could consume. **The knowledge gap is the real bottleneck for stability.** Our goal, therefore, was to upgrade the domain knowledge dormant in code and experience into **an engineering asset that AI can perceive, consume, and evolve**. The vehicle is Qoder's knowledge engine: code output becomes capture, AI coding becomes consumption, and practical validation becomes feedback, forming a loop that keeps appreciating in value rather than a static document that is outdated the moment it is finalized. ## 1 | Layers and Boundaries For the loop to run, knowledge first needs a map: how many layers there are, where each one lives, and where the boundary of this article is drawn. AutoSDK's domain knowledge is a full spectrum running from low-level code facts up to top-level constraints and preferences. We divide it into four layers by degree of abstraction, and the relationship among them maps onto the DIKW spectrum of cognition. **L1 Code and configuration (the Data layer)**: the raw facts underlying all knowledge. Everything above is distilled from it, and whenever knowledge conflicts with code, the code always wins. **L2 Terminology and processes (the Information layer)**: core terms, module information, and critical paths. **L3 Business domain knowledge (the Knowledge layer)**: responsibility boundaries, architectural rules, and the reasons behind the status quo, helping the Agent understand the business as a whole and avoid design drift. **L4 Constraints and preferences (the Wisdom layer)**: this layer covers how something should be written and why it is written that way. It holds design constraints, solution preferences, key decisions, API design methodology, and more. Its reach is broad and it is triggered often, so precision is what matters. The relationship among the four layers runs both ways. **Bottom-up, each layer distills the one below it**, since all upper knowledge is abstracted from lower knowledge. **Top-down, each layer guides execution**: AI reads the L4 constraints first, then consults L3 and L2 to understand the current state, and finally lands at L1 to write code. At the same time, the higher the layer, the more it depends on people, and the lower the layer, the more it depends on the engine. This article focuses on engine-led factual knowledge (L1 through L3). It can be distilled in bulk and refreshed automatically alongside the code, giving it **broad coverage at low maintenance cost**, and it solves the problem of **not being able to see the current state clearly**. L4 leans on human judgment and forms a system of its own, so it is out of scope here. ## 2 | The Knowledge Lifecycle From first output to continuous appreciation, knowledge goes through a complete lifecycle: upfront intervention delivers the first production run, sustained downstream tuning carries it from cold start to steady-state operation, practice identifies which high-value knowledge deserves priority, and a freshness mechanism keeps it current. ### 2.1 First Production: Upfront Intervention and Calibration Turn the knowledge engine loose without drawing boundaries and it will partition knowledge by code structure rather than business structure, producing a pile of cards that are too coarse, vaguely bounded, and redundant with one another. Once that misalignment is captured, reworking it later costs more than starting over, because you first have to correct every place AI misread, one by one. Using Qoder's /knowledge-plan command, we have AI perform a full scan of the repository and generate a draft production plan, which people then review and revise: aligning business boundaries, removing ambiguity and redundancy, and adding missing dimensions. The result is a production blueprint AI can read, one that provides direction and dimensional guidance rather than the final knowledge content. The value of upfront intervention is this: code can only state the structural fact of what exists here, while the business perspective of how to look at it has to be injected by people in advance. In essence, it turns the business understanding inside experts' heads into a blueprint that precedes AI knowledge production. ### 2.2 Tuning and Revision: From First Polish to Bad Case Closure Getting it right the first time depends on exhaustive foresight, which is expensive and fragile. Risk inside a complex system can never be fully enumerated, and any unanticipated edge condition is enough to break through. Downstream tuning runs in three steps with Qoder's /knowledge command: identify, organize, write. We pin down what needs improvement and attribute it to specific cards, AI gathers the code facts and upstream and downstream relationships, organizes them into a structured draft, and finally writes them into the knowledge base. **Cold start**: concentrated polishing right after the first output. Once the engine has produced in bulk, people run a dedicated review pass over the entire body of knowledge, checking whether boundaries align with business structure, whether terminology is accurate, and whether redundancy or contradiction exists across cards, correcting the systematic drift of automated distillation in one concentrated effort. Once the first batch of business requirements enters AI coding, bad cases expose blind spots in dense succession, and this is when revision frequency peaks. **Steady-state operation**: bad cases drive routine revision. Misread terminology during requirement comprehension, module drift during exploration, architecture violations during design, hallucinated output during coding, all of it signals missing knowledge. The response is a fixed three steps: locate, revise, regress. Regression is not about whether a human can follow the text, but about returning to the original task to verify that AI corrects its behavior, and anything that fails goes back for another round. Internally we commit to closing every bad case the same day. **Bad cases are not the only thing worth capturing. Information from good cases that came at a high exploration cost deserves capture just as much.** An implicit dependency that took the Agent fifteen rounds to locate, for instance, makes that very path the knowledge for next time. Failure drives us to close gaps and expensive success drives us to cut cost, and together the two push the knowledge base toward maturity. ### 2.3 What to Capture: Criteria for High-Value Knowledge After the production and tuning described above, a higher-order question gradually surfaces: plenty of knowledge is worth capturing, but which deserves investment first? You cannot fully enumerate the types of high-value knowledge at the outset. Only once the Agent genuinely drifts off course in the same direction repeatedly can you confirm there is a pitfall there. There is only one criterion: without this knowledge, the Agent will most likely drift or pay an excessive exploration cost. The inverse matters just as much. Knowledge that the code already expresses clearly, and that the Agent can reach cheaply, does not need separate capture. Simple utility function signatures or standard library usage, for example, are documented by the code itself, and writing another knowledge card is pure redundancy. In practice we converged on four categories most worth prioritizing. What they share is that code cannot provide a reliable answer: - **The panorama of complex business logic**: the full path is scattered across multiple files. Without knowledge the Agent explores divergently at high and volatile cost, and with knowledge it converges quickly onto a precise track. - **Hidden pitfalls in the code**: code fragments that look alike are the most likely to confuse the Agent. Here knowledge acts as a guardrail for crossing the pitfall smoothly, flagging in advance the paths that look right but are actually wrong. - **Distinguishing business terminology**: terms established by convention lack explicit definitions in code, so an Agent search returns nothing but superficially similar answers. Capturing them moves the Agent from needing human correction to passing on the first round. - **Cross-repository paths**: data paths spanning multiple Git repositories, as in AutoSDK's lane-level map layer business. Exploration cost is extremely high, and scenarios where the call chain breaks, such as thread switches and message dispatch, are especially hard for AI to explore. A knowledge card belongs to a single repository while describing cross-repository information, which preserves the per-repository organizing framework while restoring the implicit path across the break. These four categories were all discovered the same way: identified and recorded only after a concrete bad case exposed them. What gets captured is not designed, it is learned the hard way. ### 2.4 Staying Fresh: Hook-Triggered Automatic Updates Code changes every day, and no one can watch it line by line. We packaged knowledge refresh as a Skill and bound it to the development process through a WebHook on the code platform: a merge into the trunk triggers a callback that spins up an Agent, the Agent pulls the diff for that merge, and QoderCLI completes the incremental knowledge update automatically, with the result pushed to developers as a single message. **Knowledge updates are driven by code change events**, refreshing on merge, unattended most of the time, with intervention only when something goes wrong. ### 2.5 Collaboration Mechanisms and Evolution For the tuning and automatic freshness above to work, there is an implicit prerequisite: knowledge for the same module is not rewritten by several people at once. Reality does not always cooperate. The cloud side of Qoder's knowledge engine currently uses overwrite-based updates, so in concurrent editing the later write overwrites the earlier one, and capabilities such as review, staged rollout, and rollback are not yet available. Our interim approach routes each module's knowledge through a single Owner, trading parallel efficiency for consistency. As Qoder's knowledge engine progressively supports concurrent editing and version management, efficiency and consistency will eventually come together. ## 3 | Knowledge Consumption ### 3.1 One Source, Many Outlets AutoSDK has four kinds of knowledge consumers: AI Agents need structured recall, developers use document search, non-development roles ask about the business without reading code, and external teams integrate through an existing platform. The temptation to write a separate version for each is always there, but **the drift and contradiction that follow forking are more fatal than the maintenance cost**. We hold just one line: **a single body of knowledge serves both people and AI, never forked**. From one source we open different outlets: developers use RepoWiki, AI recalls through SearchMemory, non-developers read QMind online, and external teams sync to KBase through the CLI or API. The first three are produced by Qoder's knowledge engine from the same source and therefore never diverge, while KBase slots into the existing pipeline unobtrusively, forcing no one to change habits. ### 3.2 Recall Across Nested Repositories Nested repositories are everywhere in AutoSDK, with component repositories embedded inside the main project. A developer opens the project in the main repository while component-level knowledge sits scattered across sub-repositories, and if recall stops at the workspace boundary, the earlier production investment is reduced to zero. We first hit this in a nested component requirement: the Agent searched for knowledge in the main repository and got nothing but main-repository overviews, finding nothing about the key logic living in a sub-repository, so developers had to switch workspaces by hand and the AI coding workflow degraded completely. Qoder's nested recall capability, which lets you configure whether sub-repository knowledge is recalled by the parent directory repository, upgrades knowledge reachability from workspace-bound to repository-structure-bound: open the project in the main repository, and recall covers knowledge cards in both the main repository and every embedded sub-repository, with no switching required. ### 3.3 Knowledge Consumption in the AI Coding Workflow AutoSDK's AI coding workflow follows a plan-act pattern overall, and one wrong step during planning means rework for everything after it. Without agreed timing and objectives for recall, knowledge is merely a static asset. Qoder's built-in SearchMemory tool indexes knowledge cards, and each stage of the pipeline has a different recall objective: - **Requirement comprehension**: recall knowledge using keywords from the PRD such as interface names, protocol names, functional concepts, and terminology, then assess how well it matches. Strong matches enter the component candidate set and are cross-checked against AGENTS.md, while weak matches and misses are ignored, which prevents misread terminology from routing work to the wrong component. - **Exploration**: first recall background such as module architecture, coding patterns, and technical constraints using the exploration topic and target component as keywords, then begin searching code. Every time a key new symbol appears, such as a core class name, a critical interface, or an unexpected dependency, immediately recall its responsibilities and its upstream and downstream relationships. Recall does not block the search and a miss does not impede progress, but a hit narrows the search space substantially and avoids blind traversal. - **Solution design**: hold to dual-source fusion, with research leading and knowledge supporting. First recall domain background and evolution direction using domain terminology, key function names, and historical design strategies, retrying with different wording on a miss up to a set limit. Then launch a code investigation and cross-check the prior knowledge against the code on the ground, which avoids design drift. What matters in knowledge consumption is which stage, which keywords, and to what end. Only once recall is embedded as a fixed action does knowledge genuinely participate in decisions. ## 4 | Evaluating the Results We evaluate the knowledge system from two angles. **The case view dissects how knowledge corrects bad cases through concrete business scenarios. The data view quantifies the measured gains before and after adoption under a controlled definition.** ### 4.1 The Case View: How Knowledge Corrects Bad Cases The two representative cases below both follow the same structure: scenario, deviation without knowledge, knowledge intervention, root-cause takeaway. #### Case One: A Missed Panorama of Complex Business Logic **Scenario**: a large-scale refactor of a business component, involving process changes and the retirement of legacy components, with wide-reaching impact. **Deviation without knowledge**: AI touched only the component implementation and missed the bound callback parameters and the associated business interfaces. The change looked complete while the path was in fact broken, and because nothing failed immediately, it surfaced only during integration testing, requiring a backward trace across several files to locate what had been left unchanged. **Knowledge intervention**: with panoramic business knowledge, AI enumerated the component implementation, callback parameters, and associated business interfaces completely in one pass, correctly drew the boundary against similar components, and finished the refactor in a single attempt with no manual patching. **Root-cause takeaway**: the panorama of complex business logic is scattered across many files and call sites, so capturing a view such as "component equals implementation plus style callbacks plus business interfaces" as knowledge is precisely how the most easily missed implicit context gets delivered up front. #### Case Two: Semantic Confusion Among Similar Structs **Scenario**: add a standalone highlight effect for the target lane, with its own color scheme and animation, fully separated from the existing ego-lane highlight. **Deviation without knowledge**: three similarly named objects in the code belong to different semantic dimensions, namely target lane style, ego lane style, and adjacent vehicle target marker. AI conflated all three: it first judged the target lane style to be nonexistent and applied the ego lane style instead, then treated the adjacent vehicle target's isHighlight field as a lane highlight switch, requiring the user to paste header files repeatedly across several rounds of correction. **Knowledge intervention**: with terminology knowledge, AI clarified everything in one pass, that StyleA and StyleB are independent structs and must never be reused, and that the isHighlight field is a marker at the adjacent vehicle target level and has nothing to do with lane highlighting. It completed the change directly, with no manual code pasting needed. **Root-cause takeaway**: the fact that similar naming does not mean identical semantics cannot be read out of code. Capturing the semantic distinctions among similar objects and the separation of cross-dimensional concepts as knowledge blocks interference-type bad cases at the source. ### 4.2 The Data View: Investment and Measured Gains The case view answers how knowledge works, and the data view answers whether the investment is worth it. **Cost**: for first production, an average of two hours per repository to complete planning and proofread the production blueprint, with 20-plus business component repositories covered on a weekly cadence. For routine maintenance, driven by bad cases, the analysis, revision, and regression loop for a single piece of knowledge closes within hours. **Primary metric**: the strict adjusted one-shot rate, defined tightly. The denominator is tasks that produced code changes within a given period, and the numerator is tasks completed in a single query where 80% of the code was neither rolled back nor modified within 30 minutes. It measures **whether AI can grasp the business panorama and its details well enough to get the task right the first time**. After the knowledge system was adopted, the team ran 120-plus tasks in real day-to-day business, spanning simple, medium, and complex difficulty levels and covering requirement types from new features to changes in existing ones. Using this batch as the basis, we ran both a stage comparison before and after adoption and a controlled comparison within the same window based on whether knowledge was actually recalled. #### Stage Comparison: Before and After the Knowledge System Taking adoption as the dividing line, the **strict one-shot rate rose from 37.3% to 61.5%** afterward, and the **average number of conversation rounds per completed task fell from 3.49 to 2.53**. This shows that knowledge not only raised the share of tasks done right the first time, but also lowered the cost of iteration. ![image.png](https://img.alicdn.com/imgextra/i4/O1CN015giEjbvckID26fOq_!!6000000001759-0-tps-1038-746.jpg) #### Controlled Comparison: With and Without Knowledge Recall in the Same Period The stage comparison above is influenced by multiple factors such as time trends and task composition. To isolate the effect of knowledge itself more directly, we grouped tasks within the same period by whether knowledge was actually recalled. The recall group's interaction path was **39% shorter on average**, most pronounced in scenarios that demand a great deal of implicit context, such as complex tasks and large codebases, consistent with the original intent of lowering exploration cost and filling in the business panorama. It should be noted that these statistics come from real operation, the sample carries distribution bias and fluctuation introduced by changes in member tasks, and whether knowledge was recalled also correlates with task difficulty, knowledge richness, and Agent behavior, so the conclusions are stronger in direction than in absolute value. Even accounting for all of this interference, however, the stage trend and the same-period controlled comparison point to the same signal: **the translation of knowledge into results is positive and observable**. ## 5 | The Threshold from Usable to Trustworthy This is AMAP AutoSDK's domain knowledge engineering practice built on Qoder's knowledge engine, spanning knowledge production, tuning, refresh, and consumption. The measured data shows the system lifted the strict one-shot rate from 37.3% to 61.5%, cut average conversation rounds by nearly 30%, and shortened the interaction path by 39% for the group where knowledge was recalled. Qoder's knowledge engine provided the critical support for this practice: /knowledge-plan aligns boundaries up front and removes ambiguity and redundancy before bulk production, /knowledge tunes the knowledge problems that practice exposes, and the built-in SearchMemory tool recalls knowledge cards precisely during requirement comprehension, exploration, and solution design. Native platform support for nested repository recall and for one source with many outlets (RepoWiki, KnowledgeCard, QMind) lets a single source of knowledge serve people and AI at once, avoiding the fatal cost of version drift. The core of domain knowledge engineering is not how many documents you write, but making sure the same class of error never happens twice. Once your team reaches that point, AI Coding crosses the threshold from usable to trustworthy. ## 6 | Four Directly Reusable Recommendations for Enterprises Industrializing AI Coding If your team is also pushing AI Coding toward an engineering discipline, these four points are what we would most want to tell ourselves in advance, after the pitfalls we walked into: **Recommendation one: map your knowledge layers before you discuss tooling.** Do not start by rolling out an AI assistant. Spend 30 minutes drawing your team's L1 to L4 map first: what the code already expresses (L1), what is scattered terminology (L2), what is the business panorama (L3), and what are design constraints (L4). Once the layers are clear, tool selection converges on its own: hand L1 to L3 to Qoder's knowledge engine for bulk distillation, and leave L4 to senior engineers writing Skills and AGENTS.md. Steer clear of the myth that one large model solves everything. **Recommendation two: start the mechanism with same-day bad case closure, not with a complete knowledge base.** Perfectionism is the biggest enemy. Set one iron rule on day one: every bad case in AI Coding gets located, revised, and regression-verified the same day, without exception. Even if only five knowledge cards are captured in the first week, stick with it for three months and you will have a knowledge base with a high signal-to-noise ratio. That is ten times more effective than quietly writing 200 pages of documentation. **Recommendation three: keep only the knowledge that code cannot express and exploration cannot reach cheaply.** Filter with a simple rule: if AI can figure it out within three minutes of reading code, do not write it; if AI took fifteen rounds to locate it, or if similar names make it easy to confuse, you must write it. The four categories worth prioritizing are the complex business panorama, hidden pitfalls in code, terminology distinctions, and cross-repository paths. Everything else is noise. **Recommendation four: one source, one version, held from day one.** Do not maintain two copies just because people and AI read different formats. Pick one source, such as Qoder RepoWiki, as the single source of truth, and derive everything from it, whether AI consumption, developer lookup, or external inquiries. Forking feels good briefly, and then drift buries you. # Qoder Assistant Group Chat Q&A Bot User Manual > Qoder Assistant is a group chat Q&A bot that answers only from your knowledge base, privately checks with the colleagues you designate whenever it is unsure, and turns every confirmed answer into new knowledge. ## 1. What Is Qoder Assistant Qoder Assistant is your team's **group chat Q\&A bot**. Once it joins a group chat, team members simply ask their questions in the group and Qoder Assistant answers automatically. It has three defining characteristics: - **Grounded answers only**: it answers strictly from the knowledge base you provide, and never makes things up - **Asks when unsure**: when it runs into a question it is not confident about, it proactively checks with the colleagues you designate - **Gets smarter with use**: answers confirmed by colleagues accumulate automatically and are reused directly next time ## 2. Creation and Configuration ### 2.1 Creating Qoder Assistant Open the QoderWake console, click "Create Waker", choose the **"Qoder Assistant (Q\&A Bot)"** template, fill in a name and description, and you are done. After creation, the detail page displays a configuration guide. Just follow the prompts step by step. ### 2.2 Connecting to Group Chats Open the Qoder Assistant detail page, select "IM" in the left sidebar, and go to the IM channel configuration page. **Supported channels:** - DingTalk (Alibaba team accounts support the AliDing bot only) - Lark (currently under internal security review and not yet available) **Steps to connect:** 1. Click the "Configure" button for the channel you want 2. Fill in the App ID and App Secret (or choose QR code mode) 3. Click "Add Pairing", select the channel, and fill in the pairing details: - **Conversation information**: choose "Direct Message" or "Group Chat" as needed. For direct messages, providing the Open ID is recommended; if no Open ID is provided, a User ID is required; the display name is optional - **Runtime configuration**: select the model and working directory as needed; if no working directory is selected, the default IM working directory is used 4. Click "Create Pairing", then turn on the channel switch to activate it > **Qoder Assistant uses workflow mode by default, with no manual selection required.** The Open ID identifies a user within the current application, while the User ID is the account identifier inside your company or organization. Once pairing is complete, messages automatically enter the preset Q\&A flow. After connecting, group members just ask questions as usual, with no extra steps required. Multiple channels can be connected at the same time. ### 2.3 Configuring the Knowledge Base The knowledge base is the source of evidence for every answer Qoder Assistant gives. Qoder Assistant acquires knowledge by **binding** knowledge bases available on the platform. **Steps:** 1. Open the Qoder Assistant detail page, select "Knowledge Base" in the left sidebar, and click "Bind Knowledge Base" 2. Choose "Select Existing" to bind a knowledge base already on the platform, or choose "Create and Bind" to create a new one 3. Multiple knowledge bases can be bound **Knowledge base content management** happens in the platform-level "Knowledge Base" module (the knowledge base icon in the left navigation bar), where you can upload files, enter URLs, add entries manually, and more. > **Recommendation**: first create and upload your team's existing FAQ documents in the Knowledge Base module, then come back here and bind them. ### 2.4 Asking Colleagues for Help When Qoder Assistant encounters a question the knowledge base does not cover, it automatically sends a direct message to the colleagues you designate to confirm the answer. Select "Team Collaboration" in the left sidebar, click "Add Colleague", search by name or employee ID, and fill in the collaboration settings: - **Areas of expertise**: for example "reimbursement, attendance"; Qoder Assistant routes questions by matching these areas - **Role**: technical owner, business owner, and so on - **Permission checkboxes**: enabled, can confirm answers, can be asked for help The page shows how many questions are currently awaiting confirmation and how many are complete, making it easy to track progress. ### 2.5 Reply Requirements Manage Qoder Assistant's reply behavior on the "Settings" page in the left sidebar: - **Reply style**: professional and measured / concise and direct / lively and upbeat, chosen to match the tone of the group - **Reply language**: follow the user / always Chinese / always English - **Business scope**: tell Qoder Assistant which kinds of questions it is responsible for (it declines anything out of scope) - **Sensitive information**: define the content types it must never reply with (such as account credentials); when encountered, it directs the user to contact the owner - **Disclaimer**: can be enabled for external groups, appending a disclaimer to the end of every reply ## 3. How It Works Everything Qoder Assistant does is driven by a **preset WakerFlow workflow**. When you create a Qoder Assistant, the system initializes this default flow automatically. ### Default Flow Logic Once a group message arrives, WakerFlow makes decisions in the following order: 1. **Primary decision**: determine the message intent, whether it is a legitimate question, noise, out of scope, or an expert reply 2. **Task execution**: - Legitimate question, then search the knowledge base, then reply if an answer is found - No match in the knowledge base, then escalate to an expert request, then send a direct message to the relevant colleague 3. **Expert reply handling**: the colleague confirms the answer, then it is posted back to the original group automatically, then the knowledge is stored **The core loop:** question, knowledge base search, ask a colleague when unsure, capture the confirmed answer as knowledge, answer directly next time. The longer it is used, the more questions Qoder Assistant can answer on its own, and the less often it needs to interrupt colleagues. ### Viewing and Editing the Workflow Open the Qoder Assistant detail page and select the "Workflow" tab in the left sidebar to see the workflow script: - **Canvas**: view the entire flow structure visually and modify nodes by dragging - **Script**: edit the JavaScript code directly - **Run history**: review how each group message was processed and how long each step took Beyond the default Q\&A flow, you can also **create new WakerFlows of your own** so Qoder Assistant handles more custom tasks, such as summarizing unresolved questions into a daily report, or checking on a schedule whether the knowledge base has gone stale. Click the "New WakerFlow" button and define the flow either through conversational editing of designated canvas nodes or by writing the script by hand. > **Tip**: if you do not need a custom flow, leave the default as is. The default flow already covers the vast majority of group chat Q\&A scenarios. ## 4. Reviewing Results ### Q\&A Records The "Q\&A Records" section in the left sidebar presents Qoder Assistant's operating data: total questions, reply rate, help requests, and failures. Filtering by group chat is supported. It makes clear at a glance which kinds of questions go unanswered, so you can top up knowledge exactly where it is needed. ![image](https://alidocs.oss-cn-zhangjiakou.aliyuncs.com/res/vBPlN5Xwk96B9OdG/img/06ca1dc7-a72b-4b44-b337-81c28e367c6e.png) ## 5. FAQ | Question | Answer | | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Are Qoder Assistant's answers accurate? | Qoder Assistant answers from knowledge base content first and hands off questions it is unsure about to colleagues for confirmation. That said, it is powered by a large language model, so we recommend piloting it with a small group, observing answer quality, and then expanding usage. | | Can I use it without a technical background? | Yes. The knowledge base only requires uploading documents, and the remaining settings can be completed step by step by following the guide on the home page. | | Does it support questions asked with images? | It can receive images, but it currently relies mainly on the text within them. Complex interfaces, charts, or questions conveyed by an image alone may be misunderstood, so adding a text description is recommended. | | Will it interrupt colleagues too often? | Once a given type of question is confirmed, it is captured as knowledge and will not be routed again. Routing rules can be adjusted in the collaboration settings. | | What should I do if an answer is inaccurate? | Add or correct the relevant content in the knowledge base, or adjust the business scope description under "Settings". | | How do I review answer quality? | Check "Q\&A Records" in the left sidebar, where you can filter question counts, reply rate, help requests, and other metrics by group. | | I added the bot, but the group chat list is empty. What now? | This usually means DingTalk event subscription was not configured successfully. Delete the current DingTalk channel, run `qoderwake channel dingtalk qr-start`, authorize by scanning the QR code with DingTalk on your phone, and add the new bot to the group chat. The QR code flow configures event subscription automatically. | | A direct message request failed with `HTTP 403 - IpNotInWhiteList`. What now? | Open the corresponding application on the DingTalk Open Platform and add the egress IP of the server running QoderWake to the allowlist under "Permission Management / Development Configuration" or "Application Security Settings". | | My original knowledge base disappeared after an update. Is the data lost? | The knowledge base is still associated with your platform account and no data has been lost. After upgrading to the latest version, simply bind the original knowledge base again. | | A DingTalk document link returns 404 after being added to the knowledge base. What now? | DingTalk documents are access restricted and cannot be bound and read directly as a knowledge source. Export it to a supported file format and upload that, or convert it into publicly accessible content before importing. | | Qoder Assistant answered with out-of-scope content or content from another version. What now? | Define the business scope and applicable version explicitly under "Settings", and bind only the knowledge bases for the matching product and version. Clean up or refresh outdated content promptly to reduce irrelevant recall. | | How do I diagnose an abnormal answer? | Go to "Workflow, then Run History" to review how the message was processed, what the knowledge base recalled, and which tools were called, then adjust the knowledge base or reply settings based on what you find. | # 400 Business Scenarios, 300 Agents: How a Retail Company Built Its AI Platform > Kidswant used Qoder to shorten a week-long full-stack requirement to one day and build Zhishu, an AI platform running 400 business scenarios and 300 agents. ![image.png](https://img.alicdn.com/imgextra/i4/O1CN01TsCBkJUBFSC3eaX8_!!6000000000007-2-tps-1800-766.png) ## While Others Added AI to Their Businesses, Kidswant First Made Its R\&D Team AI Native > *Many companies talk about AI transformation as adding a few AI features to the business. Kidswant took an earlier step: it first made software creation itself AI native. Qoder was the lever.* ### A Full-Stack Requirement Went from One Week to One Day In the past, implementing an integrated frontend-and-backend business requirement meant that people first broke the requirement into tasks and then wrote the code line by line, with tools providing occasional completions on the side. Kidswant's R\&D team adopted a different approach. Using Qoder, they clearly described the goal and acceptance criteria and built their internal AI platform, Zhishu, shortening delivery from nearly six months to two months. Qoder is an Agentic coding platform designed for real-world software development. Unlike ordinary code-completion tools, it first understands the entire codebase and then advances tasks systematically, like an engineer. In actual development, several capabilities changed the team's rhythm. For a system with many modules and intertwined frontend and backend components, the greatest obstacle is not understanding the codebase. Qoder's Repo Wiki automatically organizes the architecture buried in the code into documentation, continuously updates it as the code changes, and can be committed to Git so the entire team shares the same understanding. When developers ask, "How is this implemented?", they can get an answer without searching through the source code. Multiple developers collaborated during the development of Zhishu. Repo Wiki enabled efficient coordination across complex modules and played an especially important role as Agent orchestration and knowledge-base modules were continuously iterated and integrated. When implementing requirements, the team used Quest Mode. After the goal and acceptance criteria are clearly described, it aligns the scope, designs a solution, writes the code end to end, verifies it, and fixes issues on its own. A full-stack requirement changes files across multiple technology stacks, which is precisely where multi-file modification and long-running execution are valuable. When developing the Skills marketplace for Zhishu, the work involved frontend-backend interaction. After developers clearly described the marketplace's functional requirements and page interactions in Quest Mode, the feature could be completed in about one day. To ensure that AI-generated code matched the company's business instead of producing boilerplate that required rework, the team packaged coding conventions, business context, and review standards as project-level Skills. Agents then followed those rules automatically when writing and reviewing code. MCP connected Qoder to internal tools and systems. The significance of this change was not simply how much faster code could be written. The team's default way of working changed from "people write, AI assists" to "people define, AI delivers." That is what AI Native should look like. ### Building More Than Ten Expert Agents Was Like Adding More Than Ten Real Teams The most important product Kidswant built in this way was Zhishu, its self-developed AI platform. Built on Qwen large language models, Zhishu integrates a knowledge base, workflows, and Skills. It supports multi-Agent collaboration, long- and short-term contextual memory, and interactions through DingTalk, H5, and other channels. Today, Zhishu runs more than 400 business scenarios and over 300 agents. It has also accumulated more than ten "expert agents" for roles such as data analysis, finance, supply chain, customer service, and content creation. Each corresponds to a real team in the company. Notably, most of the Skills were also created after being optimized with Qoder. ![image.png](https://img.alicdn.com/imgextra/i1/O1CN01Slm34q2UYtJ2b0Fd_!!6000000001300-0-tps-1279-498.jpg) *Zhishu's expert agents cover functions from data analysis to human resources.* The Super Entry is a company-wide unified entry built on the Zhishu Agent platform and composed of more than ten business expert agents. Kidswant provides the same entry in its internal site employee workbench and its "People and Customers as One" platform. ![image.png](https://img.alicdn.com/imgextra/i4/O1CN01XywYIHqJEoC1uxUD_!!6000000000136-2-tps-945-428.png) *Employees sign in to the site workbench and summon any expert agent through the Super Entry.* The same development approach was reused for the desktop version of Zhishu. Kidswant used Qoder to build macOS and Windows clients with more than 50 internal operations and office Skills. The clients can also run background automation tasks performed by "digital employees." ![image.png](https://img.alicdn.com/imgextra/i1/O1CN010U5uHS1ZeM5hCS6So_!!6000000003219-2-tps-1749-927.png) *The Zhishu client brings AI capabilities from the browser to employees' desktops.* The results are tangible. Financial reconciliation was reduced from three days of manual work to 20 minutes. Data-analysis efficiency nearly tripled. The intelligent settlement assistant resolves more than half of the issues it handles, and the content-creation expert saves the equivalent capacity of more than 30 employees. More business users are also beginning to define agents and Skills for their own work on the platform. This creates a closed loop: R\&D uses Qoder to write code; that code builds Zhishu; Zhishu uses Qwen to serve the business; and new business requirements return to R\&D, where Qoder is used again. More importantly, the content-marketing, supply-chain, and store-operations experts accumulated by Kidswant are fully adapted to the maternal-and-infant retail industry. ### "Can You Use AI?" Became Part of Performance Evaluation Beyond tools and platforms, Kidswant embedded the transformation in its organization. The CTO and HR organizations led the initiative together, upgrading R\&D collaboration while incorporating the ability to use AI into capability evaluations. Tools can save time, but what the organization does with that time determines the depth of the transformation. For Kidswant, the development time saved by Qoder became time the team could invest in building platforms, connecting scenarios, and accumulating methodology. ### Final Thoughts For a retail company, the hardest part is not buying an advanced tool, but turning that tool into an organizational capability. Kidswant is doing the latter. Several prerequisites from Kidswant's experience are worth considering: - **What signals indicate that transformation should begin with R\&D?** Business-side AI requirements have been queued for more than three months, R\&D delivery cannot keep up with business demand, and the bottleneck is capacity rather than ideas. - **How should the first pilot requirement be selected?** Do not choose the simplest one, because it proves little, or the most complex one, because too many variables make failure likely. Choose a requirement with clear boundaries, multiple technology stacks, and a conventional delivery time of about one week. - **When does Repo Wiki create the most value?** When a codebase has hundreds of thousands of lines, many collaborators, and legacy code that newcomers cannot understand. A small project with two or three developers may not need it. - **How should the first Agents be selected?** Start with the teams that repeatedly perform the same type of work, rather than with what AI can do. Kidswant mapped every expert agent to a real team—finance to a finance expert, supply chain to a supply-chain expert—so the Agent's boundary, users, and evaluation criteria already existed. Begin with teams that are labor-intensive, rule-driven, and produce standardized outputs. - **When should the change expand to the organizational level?** Do not declare company-wide AI adoption at the beginning, when there are no successful examples to support it. Establish a benchmark and measurable results first, then introduce organizational mechanisms. [Contact us for more enterprise solutions ➔](https://page.aliyun.com/form/act465803565/index.htm?spm=a2c7g.act_detail.main.6.21921b90ToNJto) # Farewell to "Vibe Coding": The Evolution and Practice of Team-Level AI Development Powered by Harness Governance and SDD > AMAP's evolution and practice of team-level AI development powered by Harness governance and SDD. Hello everyone. I'm Wang Shuxin from AMAP's Large Model Application Platform. Today I'd like to share a topic titled "Farewell to 'Vibe Coding': The Evolution and Practice of Team-Level AI Development Powered by Harness Governance and SDD." ## 1. Identifying the Three Core Problems of AI Coding The story starts last September. Back then, I was invited to the Qoder sub-forum at the Yunqi Conference to share our team's experience in improving R\&D efficiency with Qoder. It was a moment full of expectation—leveraging prompt engineering and context engineering, we achieved a 53% AI code-generation rate across the technical-design and development phases. At the time, that number showed us the enormous potential of AI programming. After more than half a year of rapid AI progress, our team's code-generation rate can now reach 80%–90% and beyond. The number looks great—it has nearly doubled. But when we interviewed the team in depth and reviewed the PMO's data metrics, we discovered a puzzling fact: **the efficiency gains were not obvious.** The code-generation rate went up, but project delivery cycles didn't shorten noticeably; AI wrote more code, yet developers' workloads didn't decrease. This forced us to stop and think seriously about the problem. Let me first revisit the core content I shared back then. We identified three problems with AI Coding: **First, the free-improvisation problem.** AI-generated code is often wildly unconstrained, because of insufficient business understanding and missing conventions. Ask it to build a feature, and it may give you three different implementations—each one "runs," but each may clash with your existing architecture. **Second, the reduced-efficiency problem.** It sounds contradictory—isn't AI supposed to boost efficiency? But in real use, if your instructions aren't clear enough, you end up going back and forth across many rounds of dialogue. You say "change this," it changes it; you say "no, like this," it changes again. After several rounds, you might as well have written it yourself. **Third, the lost-key-information problem.** Across multi-turn conversations, AI often "forgets" important constraints stated earlier. When the task granularity is too large, the architectural requirements mentioned at the start vanish by the end. To address these issues, we proposed a systematic Qoder practice at the time: using Repo Wiki, Memory, and Rules to constrain AI's free improvisation; using prompt engineering to improve efficiency; and using context engineering and Quest mode to avoid losing key information. At the end of that talk, I was full of expectations for the future of AI programming: in the future, developers would only need to define requirements and validate results, while the "grunt work" of documentation, coding, and testing would be handed to AI. AI would shift from a production tool into a new R\&D infrastructure, and developers would evolve from coders into AI architects. That was the vision back then. ## 2. Looking Beyond "Code-Generation Rate" to the Deeper Dilemma of "Efficiency" But half a year later, we were confused. Why didn't the higher code-generation rate translate into real efficiency gains? I spent a long time thinking about this, and eventually found three core reasons. ### Reason 1: R\&D Is a Full-Chain Process, Not Just Writing Code Let's look at the complete chain of a requirement from proposal to launch: product proposal, product-and-engineering review, solution design, development, code review, testing, integration, and launch. Every stage carries communication costs, waiting time, and the possibility of error. *The Mythical Man-Month* has a famous thesis—there is no silver bullet. Why? Because software development is not just coding; it involves communication, collaboration, and decision-making. If you optimize the coding stage by 50%, but coding is only 30% of the whole chain, then the overall gain is just 15%. What's more, AI-generated code may bring more code-review time, more debugging time, and more rework. This made me realize: **real efficiency gains must connect the entire chain, not just optimize a single stage.** Therefore, we need AI to cross stage boundaries and form a closed loop from requirement to deployment. ### Reason 2: Vibe Coding on Legacy Applications Is Extremely Risky What is Vibe Coding? It's "programming by vibes"—casually tossing AI a few prompts and letting it generate thousands of lines of code in seconds. This approach might be fine for new projects or small scripts, but in legacy applications the risk is extremely high. What characterizes legacy applications? They carry historical baggage, implicit dependencies, and business knowledge embedded in the code. If you let AI "vibe code," it may generate a solution that looks perfect but is completely incompatible with the existing system. Worse, these problems may only surface after going live. We once ran into a case: AI-generated code changed the parameter order of a core interface, all unit tests passed, but after launch it caused errors in three downstream services. It took an entire day to track down. This drove home a lesson: **in legacy applications, AI programming must move from "vibes" to "conventions," and there must be clear acceptance criteria.** That is exactly why we introduced SDD (Specification-Driven Development). The core idea of SDD is that before AI writes any code, we must first turn humans' vague ideas into clear, unambiguous, structured specifications, so that AI runs on a controllable track. ### Reason 3: Large Projects and Complex Requirements Exceed the Capability Boundary of a Single AI Conversation We've encountered requirements like this: a refactoring task involving a dozen front-end and back-end modules. You can't finish it in a single conversation—AI's context window is limited and its attention gets scattered. When the task is too large, AI loses sight of one thing while attending to another. These three reasons point to the same conclusion: **AI programming must upgrade from a "personal skill" to a "team-level engineering capability," and evolve from "vibe coding" into a "specification-driven, engineering-governed" R\&D paradigm.** ## 3. The Solution: Introducing SDD and Harness Having clarified the problems, we began looking for solutions. Our goal: let AI improve efficiency not only in the code-writing stage, but across the entire flow from requirement PRD to direct deployment. We focused on two core ideas: **SDD (Specification-Driven Development)** and **Harness (Harness Engineering)**. ### SDD (Specification-Driven Development) The core idea of SDD is disruptive: specifications are no longer prose written for humans, but structured "intent code" that AI Agents can precisely understand and execute. In traditional development, the PRD or design doc is merely a "guidebook," while code is the only "source of truth." This causes documents to quickly become outdated and disconnected from the code. SDD overturns this structure: the specification becomes the single source of truth. When requirements change, developers first modify the "specification," and AI tools then regenerate, validate, and update the underlying code accordingly. The SDD workflow contains four stages: **First, Specify.** The developer discusses with AI and produces a structured specification defining user stories, acceptance criteria, and system constraints. This is the "raw requirement" stage. **Second, Plan.** Like a compiler, AI "compiles" the specification into a detailed technical plan and a task-breakdown list. This is the "technical document" stage. **Third, Implement.** AI Agents execute the task list one by one, automatically generating high-quality code. This is the "software development" stage. **Fourth, Validate.** Test cases are automatically generated from the specification and executed, ensuring the generated code fully conforms to the specification. This is the "functional and code-specification testing" stage. ### Harness Engineering If SDD solves the problem of "what to do," Harness solves the problem of "how to do it controllably." The word "Harness" is vivid. Picture a wild horse—a large AI model has boundless power, but without a harness you can't even mount it and might get thrown off. The core of Harness Engineering is not to change the horse's genes (the model itself), but to design a precise control system for this wild horse. A mature Harness system contains four core pillars: **First, context engineering.** No longer simple RAG (Retrieval-Augmented Generation), but structured information feeding. Maintain a "single source of truth" so the Agent knows the project's directory structure, the current execution plan, and which documents are up to date. **Second, architectural constraints.** This is the most hardcore part of Harness. Physical means force AI to obey the rules. For example, code in the UI layer is absolutely forbidden from directly accessing the database layer. If AI tries to violate the architectural layering, the code won't even pass syntax checks and is blocked before submission. **Third, feedback loops and entropy management.** AI will inevitably make mistakes; the key is how to detect and correct them. Build an automated testing sandbox: the Agent writes code → tests run automatically → failure → error logs are read → the Agent self-corrects and retries. More importantly, human bug-fixing experience is solidified into new rules, ensuring AI never makes the same mistake twice. **Fourth, human oversight.** Humans shift from "the ones who write code" to "reviewers" and "environment designers." Their responsibilities are to define complex business boundaries, handle the 5% of ambiguous logic AI can't judge, and optimize the Harness rules themselves. From prompt engineering to context engineering to Harness Engineering, this is a paradigm shift: **from "how to talk to AI," to "what AI should see," to "how AI runs in a controlled environment."** Based on these two core ideas, we began putting them into practice with Qoder. ## 4. Full-Flow Automation in Practice Below, through a demo, I walk through the complete process of end-to-end development of a large requirement with Qoder. In the demo, you can see the entire process is fully automated: starting from the requirement PRD, to Spec generation, to task breakdown, to code generation, to test validation, and finally to deployment. Throughout this process, the developer plays the role of requirement clarifier, specification reviewer, and result validator—not code writer. Next, let me break down the whole practice in detail. ### Step 1: Design the Knowledge Base The foundation of the entire practice is the knowledge base. We organize knowledge in a three-layer structure: **project layer, technology layer, and asset layer.** - **Project-layer knowledge** includes the project overview, directory structure, architectural design, technology choices, and so on. These are the basis for AI to understand the project context. Following the idea of on-demand loading, we maintain a top-level README.md file as Qoder's "single source of truth"—if a piece of information isn't in the docs, it simply doesn't exist as far as Qoder is concerned. - **Technology-layer knowledge** includes general technical knowledge, coding conventions, middleware, third-party library documentation, best practices, and common problem solutions. This knowledge is reusable across projects and reflects the team's technical accumulation. - **Asset-layer knowledge** includes reusable code snippets, components, templates, historical requirement PRDs, technical solutions, archived test cases, and more. These are the "bricks" the team has accumulated over the years, and AI can use them directly to build new features. In real projects, docs are organized into directories following the three-layer knowledge-base structure, then indexed through a README.md for on-demand loading. This layered indexing mechanism ensures structured organization of knowledge while enabling the flexibility of on-demand loading, letting the AI agent efficiently obtain the knowledge it needs and avoid context overload. Here I want to highlight the concept of **Memory**. Memory is a core capability of Qoder that solves AI's "context anxiety." In long-cycle project development, AI needs to remember a lot of information: past decisions, current progress, pending items, and so on. Memory provides a structured way to store and manage this information. Through this Memory system, AI can make the right decisions in the right context, rather than starting from scratch every time. ### Step 2: Handle the Requirement PRD With the knowledge base in place, the next step is handling the requirement PRD. We use Qoder's Quest Spec mode to generate a standardized design.md document. This process is not fully automated—it requires human intervention. This is the idea of **HITL (Human-In-The-Loop).** Why HITL? Because requirement documents contain a lot of "tacit knowledge"—information product managers take for granted but that actually needs clarification. Take the simple feature of "user login": behind it there may be questions like which login methods to support, whether to remember login state, what password-strength requirements exist, how to handle login failures, and so on. Through Spec mode, AI proactively asks questions, guiding developers to clarify this tacit knowledge and gradually complete a full Spec. A Spec includes: **Data model**: which tables are involved, what the field definitions are, and what the relationships are. **Interface specification**: API inputs and outputs, error codes, idempotency requirements, and so on. **Most importantly: acceptance criteria.** This is the core of SDD. Acceptance criteria must be testable and unambiguous. For example, "the user is redirected to the home page after a successful login" is a vague description, whereas "after a successful login, the user is redirected to the home page within 3 seconds, and the home page displays the user's nickname" is a testable acceptance criterion. With a complete Spec, AI has a clear "construction blueprint" and is no longer "vibe coding." ### Step 3: The Experts Team Executes Tasks Once the Spec is ready, we enter the execution phase. We use Qoder's **Experts Mode.** The core idea of **Experts Mode** is that different tasks are handled by Agents playing different roles—just like a real development team with front-end engineers, back-end engineers, test engineers, architects, and so on. AI generates an execution plan from the Spec, breaking a large task into manageable subtasks. Each subtask has clear inputs, outputs, and acceptance criteria. Then, based on the task type, it is assigned to an Agent of the appropriate role. The system comes with five built-in expert types, each with its own toolset, and it also supports custom expert types. I also want to emphasize the shift in the user's role: the user is part of the coordination loop too. You can step in at any time while the Experts team is running, and the Experts Leader handles it in the next cycle—adjusting task direction or canceling tasks that are no longer needed. Your role has changed: you clarify intent with the Experts Leader, align on direction, review plans, and validate results—much like leading an experienced R\&D squad. ### Step 4: Task Deployment After code generation and testing pass, we enter the deployment phase. Through the MCP (Model Context Protocol) tools provided by Aone (Alibaba's internal CI/CD platform), we hand the build artifacts to an Ops Agent for deployment. Through MCP, the Ops Agent can trigger CI/CD pipelines, execute deployment scripts, query deployment status, and handle deployment exceptions. This connects the entire chain from requirement to deployment. Developers no longer need to manually operate various tools—they only make the key decisions under AI's guidance. For projects that couple front end and back end, we also enabled some extended-tool Skills. What are Skills? Skills are Qoder's capability-extension mechanism. Through Skills, AI can gain various additional abilities, for example: Database-operation Skill: AI can directly query and modify the database to prepare and validate data. With these Skills, AI can complete end-to-end development, testing, and validation—not just the generation of engineering code. ## 5. Summary and Outlook With the SDD-and-Harness solution, we connected the entire chain from requirement to deployment. More importantly, we achieved a paradigm shift from "vibe coding" to "specification-driven, engineering-governed" development. Developers are no longer passive code writers, but active requirement definers, specification reviewers, and result validators. AI is no longer an uncontrollable black box, but a reliable tool operating under Harness constraints. Looking ahead, we believe three directions are worth exploring: **First, smarter Spec generation.** Currently, Spec generation still requires considerable human intervention; in the future we hope to lower that cost through smarter, conversational requirement clarification. **Second, more powerful Agent Teams.** The collaboration model of Agent Teams is still relatively simple today; in the future we hope to explore more complex modes, such as multi-round iteration and dynamic role assignment. **Third, more complete knowledge management.** The knowledge base is the foundation of the entire system; in the future we hope to explore smarter mechanisms for knowledge extraction, updating, and reuse. # One Paragraph Summons 13 "Programmers": Alibaba Qoder's New Mode Lets Me Be a CTO Lying Down > Qoder's Experts Mode automatically breaks down requirements and dispatches multiple expert Agents to develop in parallel—one paragraph is enough to build and refactor a personal blog. AI Coding has finally leveled up to collaborative teamwork. That was my reaction after recently testing **Alibaba Qoder's "Experts Mode."** Under Experts Mode, **Qoder directly organized a cyber engineering team for me**—I just watch, and the expert team does the work. It automatically parses my requirements, assigns tasks, and dispatches "engineers" with different responsibilities—**frontend, backend, testing, and operations**—driving **multiple agents to advance tasks simultaneously**, letting me be a CTO lying down. This reflects a new trend in AI Coding: vibe coding is moving toward multi-agent collaborative programming, AI has turned developers into Agent managers, and the AI IDE is becoming an agent-management tool. ## The Qoder Expert Team Speed-Runs a Personal Blog with Me After opening Qoder in Editor mode, click "Toggle AI Sidebar" in the top-right corner, then click the mode-switch button at the bottom center, and you can use **Experts Mode**. To quickly test the expert team's capabilities, I chose to start from scratch and build a simple personal blog project. After I entered the project requirements, **the expert team's "commander," the Team Lead, automatically broke my requirements into 8 tasks and dispatched them to different cyber engineers**. The first one the Team Lead sent out was **general engineer Nick**. He isn't responsible for the actual development—since I currently had only an empty folder and lacked the environment the project needed, Nick first had to install dependencies for me, set up the basic project structure, and initialize the project. During this process, Nick also ran into some problems, which it overcame on its own. In the end, Nick smoothly completed the task and reported back to me. Then Nick handed off the work to his "colleague"—**backend engineer Jimmy**. But unlike a human backend engineer who handles both backend development and the database, Jimmy was only responsible for initializing the database—showing just how fine-grained the division of labor is in Experts Mode. After Jimmy finished building the database, the project could officially start writing code. The Team Lead divided the work by module among 5 engineers, who were respectively responsible for frontend pages, middleware, and backend API development—very comprehensive. It looks like a linear process, but in fact multiple engineers were advancing the project at the same time during development. This undoubtedly sped up development efficiency, and it's also one of the advantages of multi-agent collaborative programming under Experts Mode. After the previous 7 "colleagues" completed development, the project commander Team Lead also arranged for **testing engineer Chris to perform full-process validation**. Chris directly opened the browser, entered the account and password, logged into the website, and then fully tested the entire create-read-update-delete logic. At the same time, it automatically saved screenshots of key pages to display the test results. After the testing was done, the project development still wasn't over—I also had the system review the code quality, so the Team Lead added another expert, **code reviewer Mark, who found multiple system vulnerabilities and even graded them by severity**. I then had the expert team fix the vulnerabilities. The experts didn't fix them one by one directly; instead, they first analyzed the situation, then found that two tasks had no dependency on each other and could be developed independently, so two experts completed the tasks in parallel—clearly more efficient. At this point, all development and testing work was complete. With the help of the 8 experts on Qoder's expert team, **it took me just 16 minutes to have a personal blog website**. It has complete create-read-update-delete logic, with a front-end display page and a back-end management page. But the technical architecture was still rather crude, without frontend-backend separation, so I decided to raise the difficulty and test the expert team's refactoring ability, asking it to refactor the backend using Spring Boot (a Java development framework) and MySQL (a relational database). ## The Expert Team Refactors Together, Building AI Tools with AI I first, as before, told the Team Lead my requirements. After a feasibility analysis of these requirements, the Team Lead asked me a few questions, each offering three options; after I made my decisions, the Team Lead then dispatched a new expert, Alex. Alex is a researcher, responsible for analyzing my current project structure and code interfaces, then formulating a complete refactoring plan and writing it into markdown to guide the subsequent spec-driven development. With the refactoring plan in place, the Team Lead began directing the engineering team to work, and a new role appeared: **operations engineer Nick**, responsible for installing MySQL for me. After MySQL was installed locally, I worried there might be version conflicts between different components, so I stepped in at this point to raise the question on my mind, and the system gave a reassuring answer. **This is also a feature of Qoder's Experts Mode: developers can step into the process at any time to raise questions or change requirements.** This design is quite true to life—after all, which developer has never had a product manager tack on extra requirements (doge). Next came the normal advancement of the project and automatic debugging. Frontend and backend were advanced simultaneously multiple times along the way, and in the end the project was efficiently refactored and the tech stack was rewritten. **But I didn't stop there.** How can software built by AI Coding not have AI? I again asked the expert team to integrate the Qwen API for me and set a theme, so that AI could directly write articles for me in the future. ~~It's really not so I can slack off later.~~ After receiving my requirements, the Team Lead created a new task and **arranged frontend and backend engineers at the same time** to deliver the feature. From development to refactoring, I summoned 13 programmers just by moving my lips, completing as many as 30 tasks. Looking at the entire process, compared with other AI IDEs, Qoder's Experts Mode showed many unique strengths. **So, why do we need an "AI Coding expert team" now?** **Because AI Coding is ushering in a new paradigm shift.** ## Why Do We Need an "AI Coding Expert Team"? **"Since last December, AI Coding has undergone a qualitative change"**—this remark by the guru Karpathy recently sparked heated discussion in the industry. Karpathy once proposed and popularized the concept of "Vibe Coding," and now he has once again perceived a shift in the direction of AI programming. **Karpathy believes that AI programming agents are now far more capable than before and can tackle large projects and long-term tasks.** This means **AI programming has shifted from Vibe Coding to Agentic Engineering—AI is no longer just simply completing code, but has begun to fully build projects in the form of agents.** The new paradigm in AI programming has also given rise to new problems. On one hand, there's the **code quality problem**. Currently many mainstream AI Coding tools are still single-agent-based; they're fine for simple tasks, but once facing complex tasks—such as multi-round iteration or refactoring a project—**their context length may not hold up**, ultimately making development like a bear picking corn: working on the feature at hand while forgetting the earlier tasks, with a fragmented logic chain and worrying code quality in the end. On the other hand, there's **room to improve efficiency**. Large projects are very complex, involving all kinds of work—frontend UI, backend development, and database design. **Some tasks could clearly be executed separately, and real-world teams often arrange them that way**, but under single-agent programming, you're still forced to wait. Qoder's Experts Mode happens to solve both pain points of quality and efficiency. From the hands-on experience above, the expert team **isn't simply piling up the number of agents**—it's a **true multi-agent system**. Because the experts it assigned me have different specialties, and as described they actually **work in their own independent contexts**, so with mutual collaboration they can clearly handle more interaction rounds. To address the context problem, Qoder specially built an engineering knowledge engine—a code cognition system that can use multi-dimensional data sources, integrating your code files, commit history, Repo Wiki, and memory to optimize the experts' ability to deeply understand context. In addition, during testing I repeatedly found scenarios where multiple experts advanced work at the same time—in which case the experts wrote different pages separately, or developed frontend and backend separately, which undoubtedly sped up the project's progress. These are the characteristics I've perceived so far. **It's said that the expert team's agents also autonomously learn new Skills, self-evolve, and get smarter and more attuned to me the more I use them.** The new mode just launched, so I haven't discovered this feature yet; I'll share more with everyone when I have the chance. Overall, Experts Mode speeds up development efficiency and improves code quality. Qoder tested Experts Mode's code quality using an internal complex-task benchmark, and the results showed that Experts Mode scored 67% higher than its own single-agent mode, leading **Claude Code Agent Teams by 16%**. Clearly, Qoder's Experts Mode is opening a new stage. ## Ushering in the Era of Multi-Agent Collaborative Programming After vibe coding and agentic coding, AI Coding is shifting toward the **era of multi-agent collaborative programming**. Behind this is a change in user needs: they are no longer satisfied with **AI simply writing code**, but hope that **AI can efficiently deliver software, with guaranteed software quality**. A single agent clearly can no longer meet this need, so moving toward multi-agent collaborative programming becomes inevitable. Multi-agent collaborative programming further amplifies individual capability, giving an individual a digital legion that is on standby at all times, continuously evolving, and understands not just programming but engineering. This shift also requires the AI IDE to move from simply writing code and organizing files to organizing agents. This also aligns with Karpathy's prediction: in the AI Coding era people still need an IDE, and even need a larger IDE to manage agents. **This is the future direction of the IDE.** ![image.png](https://img.alicdn.com/imgextra/i1/O1CN01qDMwZp1WvLwN6vd8q_!!6000000002850-0-tps-1292-516.jpg) Now, after testing Qoder's Experts Mode, I have already seen the future of AI Coding and the AI IDE in it. *This article is reprinted from QbitAI | WeChat Official Account QbitAI* # Pupu Supermarket × Qoder | Enterprise-Grade AI Coding Workshop Wraps Up Successfully > Pupu Supermarket, together with Alibaba Cloud, held an enterprise-grade AI Coding workshop where 150+ developers put Qoder into hands-on practice. Pupu Supermarket, in partnership with the Alibaba Cloud Training Center, held an enterprise-grade AI Coding workshop, where 150+ developers jointly explored new practices for landing intelligent programming in the enterprise. ![image.png](https://img.alicdn.com/imgextra/i4/O1CN01uHUlc71wSCkBYWaXl_!!6000000006306-49-tps-1080-810.webp) Pupu Technology, together with the Alibaba Cloud Training Center, successfully held a dedicated "Enterprise-Grade AI Coding" workshop. More than 50 core developers gathered in Fuzhou on-site, with 100+ participants joining online simultaneously, together exploring the AI-driven upgrade of enterprise-grade development paradigms. This training was led by Lyu Zhaobo, a Qoder Ambassador and technical instructor at the Alibaba Cloud Training Center. Aimed at Pupu's Java development team, it covered the full software development lifecycle (SDLC)—from project scanning and requirements design to coding implementation, testing and validation, and deployment and operations. Through Qoder-based Hands-on Lab exercises, it helped participants master enterprise-grade AI Coding best practices. ## Experiment-Driven, with Visible Data The training deployed a Hands-on Lab Dashboard experiment map on-site, where participants submitted experiment screenshots in groups and the big screen displayed each group's progress in real time. A total of 232 experiment records were generated during the training, with participants' names forming a word cloud scrolling in real time—data-driven, with visible results. "We already use AI tools like Copilot in our daily work, and this training showed us the complete paradigm of enterprise-grade AI Coding," said one participant. "It's not just about writing code—it's an upgrade of development thinking." ## From Tool Upgrade to Methodology Upgrade ![image.png](https://img.alicdn.com/imgextra/i4/O1CN01YFi72E1EPbOq6GPEx_!!6000000000344-0-tps-1080-810.jpg) Pupu's development team already had a basic understanding of AI Coding tools, and this training focused on three core upgrade directions: ● **Individual efficiency → team enablement**: Qoder's Skills mechanism makes SOP workflows encapsulable, reusable, and transferable, achieving team-level capability precipitation ● **Code completion → programming prediction**: millisecond-level response, context awareness, and multi-line prediction—moving from passive response to proactive anticipation ● **0-to-1 scenarios → legacy project maintenance**: Repo Wiki lets AI understand historical code, cracking the real enterprise pain point of "taking over legacy projects" The training also released a four-step path for landing enterprise AI Coding: MCP configuration to connect the foundational tool layer → Rules to inject enterprise coding conventions → Repo Wiki to let AI understand the codebase → Skills to encapsulate and automate SOP workflows, ultimately building an enterprise-exclusive AI Agent that "understands you + understands the codebase + understands history + understands the process." For this course, we customized **13+** design pattern cards based on the enterprise's current state—such as legacy-project scan mode, Quest delegation mode, and inline prediction—turning abstract AI Coding methodology into reusable, hands-on tools. Participants learned while practicing and mastered the best practices on the spot. # XPeng Group's First AI Open Competition Concludes, with Qoder Empowering Business Staff to Explore AI Application Innovation > XPeng Group's first AI Open Competition concludes; a frontline supply-chain employee used Qoder to build the supply-chain risk management platform "Baize" and won the title, boosting risk-screening efficiency 96x On June 30, 2026, XPeng Group's first AI Open Competition officially came to a close. Launched in May, the competition featured three major tracks and was open to internal employees, employees' family members, and university students nationwide—with no barriers and no professional-background restrictions throughout. It drew more than 21,000 registrations in total, with participating teams including 200 employee-family squads and over 440 university student teams. Qoder, the AI product from Alibaba, served as a key partner of the event, providing technical support and AI capability enablement. ![image.png](https://img.alicdn.com/imgextra/i3/O1CN01vEpyc41XstQfJd7rs_!!6000000002980-49-tps-865-577.webp) XPeng Group Chairman and CEO He Xiaopeng delivered remarks on site after the competition. He said that XPeng is using AI to drive organizational efficiency, and that AI is no longer exclusive to R\&D but has permeated every role and process—"in the future, AI-driven efficiency gains will gradually move from the hundred-million level to the billion level each year, and even larger." In He Xiaopeng's view, AI should play the role of "amplifying employees" rather than replacing them; the core of technology equality is to dismantle technical barriers, so that "everyone can become a creator and beneficiary of technology." One noteworthy figure: over 50% of the participants in this competition came from non-technical roles. Procurement, supply chain, finance, marketing, quality—these roles that had never written code before stepped onto XPeng's tech stage for the first time as creators of AI products. ## Business Staff Explore AI Application Innovation with Qoder Among the most talked-about works at the finals, "Baize," the champion of Track Three "Efficiency Leap," stood out—it was built by a frontline employee from XPeng's supply chain, using Qoder as the creation tool. The author does not come from a traditional technical background but from the supply-chain front line, with a deeper understanding of real business scenarios. ![image.png](https://img.alicdn.com/imgextra/i2/O1CN016vVORa1Hw4K5Y4I32_!!6000000000821-49-tps-865-576.webp) Baize is a complete supply-chain risk management platform. It has 77 built-in risk factors spanning 7 major categories—credit risk, corporate operations, news and public opinion, disaster risk, capacity and delivery, quality, and supporting facilities—while covering 13 primary categories under the two procurement systems of strategic procurement and spot procurement. It comprehensively applies Agent orchestration, large-model reasoning, RAG knowledge enhancement, and time-series forecasting algorithms to achieve 24/7 automated monitoring of full-chain supplier dynamics. At the risk-governance layer, Baize has handled 100,000+ risk events cumulatively. The platform's built-in risk-disposition generation Agent automatically summarizes events after they occur, distills the core conflicts, provides disposition strategies, and assigns responsible owners. Work that originally required the supply-chain, procurement, and quality teams to coordinate for an entire day can now have AI quickly generate preliminary analysis and disposition recommendations, which business staff then review and refine. At the risk-prediction layer, Baize overlays the EWMA model with large-model AI capabilities to produce a two-dimensional risk-prediction leaderboard across vehicle models and suppliers. After going live, risk-screening efficiency improved 96x, monthly reporting efficiency improved 120x, risk-warning response was shortened to within 5 minutes, and ROI exceeded 35x. **The Baize project was led and built by XPeng's supply-chain business staff, with Qoder providing AI capability support for some of the business scenarios.** First, turning business language directly into AI instructions. Supply-chain staff understand best "what counts as an anomaly" and "what kind of supplier needs an alert," and Qoder helps them quickly convert business experience into reusable AI application capabilities. For Baize's automatic identification of news and public-opinion risks, automatic correlation of credit anomalies, and automatic estimation of capacity bottlenecks, staff turned years of accumulated business experience into more efficient application workflows through Qoder. Second, an end-to-end loop from idea to usable product. Baize has a complete login page, dashboard, model management, data management, event management, Agent disposition reports, and a risk-prediction module—and is currently in use in relevant business scenarios. Qoder provided AI Coding capability support during project development, helping improve business development efficiency and forming a collaboration model of "business poses the problem, AI assists, technology backstops," further shortening the development cycle of business systems. Third, precipitating enterprise domain knowledge into reusable AI capabilities. Baize's built-in 77 risk factors and 7 major risk templates are essentially the business experience accumulated over many years by XPeng's supply chain—they were structurally precipitated through Qoder and can be further reused across different business scenarios. ## Deep Collaboration Between the Two Parties Covering Full-Stack AI and Global Business XPeng and Alibaba Cloud have long deepened their collaboration. In the autonomous-driving field, XPeng's second-generation VLA model is trained on Alibaba Cloud's full-stack AI capabilities, with cluster operating efficiency consistently maintained above 90% year-round. XPeng has deployed a foundation model with 72 billion ultra-large-scale parameters in the cloud, with the model completing a full-chain iteration every five days. On the global-business front, Alibaba Cloud's global cloud infrastructure supports XPeng's overseas business expansion, helping XPeng comprehensively improve overseas business deployment efficiency. From full-stack AI collaboration to global business deployment, and now to the support of Qoder's product lineup for business innovation practices in this AI Open Competition, Alibaba Cloud and XPeng have joined hands comprehensively in the AI field, together opening up an innovation path for AI to move from R\&D to the entire workforce, and from tools to productivity. # 500,000 Lines of Agent-Written Code Entered Production: What We Got Right > With Qoder's cognitive foundation, Ultra Spec, and Experts collaboration, a 10-person team safely merged 500,000 lines of Agent-written code into a four-million-line legacy system in three weeks. Before V1.0 launched, I closed my laptop just as the final group of pull requests had passed every verification step and was ready to merge into the main branch. Every status indicator on the console was green. By the time we reached v1.4.0, the 500,000 lines written by Agents had been running in production without a single online incident and were still being changed by new requirements every day. **Delivered and launched in three weeks, 99% generated by Agents, on top of a four-million-line legacy system.** Writing 500,000 lines in an empty project would not be much of a story. In a greenfield project, an Agent is free to choose the architecture and design the interfaces. No one tells it, "Do not touch that module." The difficult part was that these 500,000 lines were written with Qoder into Qoder's own codebase. Using our product to build itself put the method and the product on the same lever: the product could work only if the method worked. ## The Eve of Project Kickoff Our team had already been using Qoder's Agents for everyday coding for nine months. V1.0 needed to answer one question: would this way of working still hold at the scale of adding hundreds of thousands of lines in three weeks? The night before kickoff, I spread the module-dependency diagrams of two repositories across three monitors: frontend on the left, backend in the center, and knowledge graph on the right. This was not an ordinary iteration touching a few modules. Five hundred thousand new lines had to be laid across four million existing ones. Every possible seam needed to be understood before work began. ![image.png](https://img.alicdn.com/imgextra/i1/O1CN01dD1B6L2776Gb8lDEf_!!6000000007749-49-tps-1080-671.webp) From v0.1 last August to today, Qoder expanded to roughly four million lines in nine months. The frontend is a VS Code extension. The backend consists of Go services for Agent orchestration, the knowledge engine, and multi-model invocation, split across two repositories. Iteration was extremely fast. We had experienced small incidents before, and the interfaces carried historical baggage. Repo Wiki and the knowledge graph covered most inter-module dependencies, but some apparently redundant layers had more than ten callers behind them, while the reasons for certain compatibility logic were known only to the people who wrote it. That was manageable when daily work changed only a few modules, but the requirements were different when dozens of Agents were writing in parallel. We needed to add four major modules: a standalone Quest view, the knowledge engine, multi-workspace parallelism, and Experts collaboration. The launch date was fixed. We had three weeks. The team consisted of ten people: three on the frontend client extension, four on the Agent harness, and three on the knowledge engine. Every new module required cross-team collaboration. Under a conventional model, the schedule for this workload would have been several times longer. This major upgrade also gave us a chance to test the real capacity boundary of Agents at this scale. What happens when the volume rises? How do we ensure that code written simultaneously by dozens of Agents can still run reliably in the existing system? That was the problem we had to solve over the next three weeks. ## Day Three, and Not a Single Line of Code Yet By the morning of day three, we still had not asked an Agent to write a single new line of code. That may sound unreasonable. Why not let the Agents start running and adjust later? Because those first two days turned out to have the highest return on investment of the entire three weeks. We first refreshed the knowledge layer: 1. **Repo Wiki received a full refresh.** Repo Wiki is a Qoder capability that automatically generates repository-level documentation from code, comments, documents, and commit history without manual intervention. With dozens of Agents about to read the same global view in parallel, we triggered a complete refresh. 2. **The code knowledge graph received a deep update.** This is also a Qoder capability. It automatically models module dependencies, interface contracts, and data flow. We focused on modules added in the previous month and recent interface changes. 3. **Historical Specs and original decisions were added to the repository.** Commit history shows how code changed, but not why a design was chosen. The reasons certain interfaces were deprecated or compatibility layers existed lived only in a few colleagues' memories. We organized that information into documents so Agents could use it too. Together, we called these three layers the **cognitive foundation**. Dozens of Agents would deliver code autonomously based on the same understanding, so every knowledge gap would be amplified. ![image.png](https://img.alicdn.com/imgextra/i1/O1CN01tEYvpD20ny1iCHKRL_!!6000000006895-49-tps-1080-669.webp) Two days and zero lines of code—all spent building the foundation. On day three, we finally began working on modules. **But we did not begin with code. We began with Specs.** ## "One More Day on the Spec Saves a Week Later" This was the step with the deepest human involvement and, in retrospect, the highest return. An ordinary Spec explains what a feature should do. An Ultra Spec is different. Multiple Agents first conduct broad and deep research in parallel so nothing is missed, and then merge and converge the findings into a complete execution plan. Agents work quickly, but people still need to read, challenge, and make trade-offs on every research result. The final Spec must be detailed enough for an Agent to execute directly. Working in a legacy system adds another perspective: every item must be reviewed from the old system's point of view. Which existing modules will the feature affect? Which old interfaces must remain compatible with the new ones? What unwritten conventions has everyone implicitly followed? For example, an Ultra Spec for the memory module in the team-shared knowledge engine needed to clarify which conversations would be distilled, when distillation would be triggered, how memories would be stored and retrieved, the interface contract with the existing code-index system, degradation strategies for an oversized memory store, and memory-isolation boundaries between workspaces. The multi-workspace module was similar. An ordinary Spec might say, "Each workspace maintains an independent Quest session without interference." An Ultra Spec kept asking questions. A scheduled task in the legacy system briefly locks a table—what happens when an overnight Agent attempts a write at the same time? Workspace paths appear in the IDE as directories, `.code-workspace` files, or URIs—which forms does the new code support? Worktree paths are different again—has that been considered? Agents will not think of these questions for you. If they are not raised during the Spec phase, they become a chain of emergency hotfixes after launch. Writing the Spec was not the end. We started multiple Agents to review the same Spec from different perspectives: an architect examined module boundaries, a security expert looked for permission vulnerabilities, a performance expert anticipated bottlenecks, and a legacy-system expert connected to the knowledge graph checked compatibility. A verifier Agent worked backward to filter out false issues created by Agent hallucinations. People made the final decisions, focusing on SLO definitions and irreversible operations. Some may think this process is too heavy. Is spending so much effort on a Spec putting the cart before the horse? My experience is that the calculation should be reversed: **one more day on the Spec saves a week later.** Once an Agent starts writing code, correction costs multiply. Anything not clarified in the Spec returns during integration at ten times the cost. ## "More Elegant Than What Our Team Writes" Once the Ultra Spec was ready, it was time to hand it to Qoder. The knowledge-engine module spanned all three teams: the frontend IDE extension layer, the Go-based Agent orchestration backend, and the core retrieval logic owned by the knowledge-engine team. Nearly ten thousand lines had to change. We knew what would happen if one Agent handled the whole task from beginning to end: in the second half, it would forget earlier agreements. Even though Qoder IDE supports a one-million-token context window, attention dilution and context decay still occur as context grows. A larger window does not mean every token receives equal attention. So we started **Experts Mode**. A Team Lead expert does not write code. It reads the Ultra Spec's task list, identifies dependencies, breaks the work into a DAG, and delegates subtasks. Tasks with dependencies do not run in parallel, and tasks likely to edit the same file do not run simultaneously. Backend, frontend, testing, and review experts each take their own assignments in independent contexts. That afternoon, I opened the Quest task board and watched 11 different Experts tasks progress at once. Within each task, a frontend expert built the memory-display component, a backend expert implemented storage and retrieval interfaces, a testing expert generated regression cases from the Spec, and a research expert scanned the legacy modules for compatibility boundaries. Every expert operated in its own independent context. In the previous single-Agent mode, every choice—solution A or B, which encryption algorithm to use—could stop the Agent and require a person. With a Team Lead coordinating the whole task, it made many intermediate decisions directly and surfaced only irreversible choices as question cards for human judgment. I was barely interrupted that afternoon. **But speed was not the key, although it was genuinely fast.** The code written by the 11 experts in that module shared consistent style, naming, and layering. The same held globally: multiple Experts tasks ran in each of the four modules, yet cross-module code still followed team conventions. That consistency came from the newly refreshed shared knowledge engine and the same original decision records. A colleague looked over at my screen and said, "It is more elegant than what our team writes." ## Thousands of Subtasks, Ten People **The greatest change produced by this model was execution efficiency and judgment.** A single Agent might take a long time to run the same task and repeatedly stop to ask people questions. With Experts, parallelizable work runs in parallel, the Team Lead handles many intermediate decisions, and people confirm only key nodes. Ten colleagues formed three groups, each running Experts tasks for its own modules. The groups aligned boundaries through the knowledge graph and Ultra Spec. Over the three weeks, they ran thousands of subtasks—roughly, each person led more than 20 Experts tasks per day, and every expert split work further in parallel. Overall execution efficiency was an order of magnitude higher than single-Agent mode. We gained something else too. Qoder's memory system developed a genuine flywheel under this intensive use. After an expert Agent completes a run, experience is automatically accumulated as an Expert Skill—for example, how to start a module's test environment or which historical pitfalls an interface contains. Key decisions enter the knowledge engine, while obsolete information is automatically forgotten or replaced. The effect became increasingly visible over the three weeks. ## Three Weeks Later At the end of the third week, all 500,000 new lines had entered the main branch. The standalone Quest view, knowledge engine, multi-workspace parallelism, and Experts collaboration were integrated into Qoder V1.0. All four modules were ready the night before delivery. Ten people, three weeks, 500,000 lines: that was the capacity produced by this method. People participated most deeply in writing the Ultra Spec at the beginning. While Agents wrote code in parallel, each group moved on to its next high-value work. The frontend group prepared interaction sketches for the next module. The Agent group handled cross-module decisions escalated by Team Leads. The knowledge-engine group worked with research Agents to calibrate legacy boundaries. In *The Mythical Man-Month*, Brooks wrote that adding people to a late project only makes it later. Teams are actively practicing the alternative—adding Agents instead of people—but succeeding in production requires more than having a Coding Agent. Agents need to run in the right environment and system, under constraints and conventions, with problems traceable when they occur. Without that foundation, adding Agents resembles adding people, and delivery lead time does not shrink. When we reviewed V1.0, these were the things we got right: - **Cognitive foundation** (Repo Wiki + code knowledge graph + historical Specs): enabled Agents to understand the current state and history of the legacy code without repeatedly realigning context. - **Ultra Spec** (divergent-then-convergent Specs + cross-review by multiple Agents): exposed ambiguity and rework risk before implementation, avoiding mutually destructive changes during integration. - **Experts collaboration** (Team Lead + specialized Agents in parallel): divided large tasks into parallelizable subtasks rather than leaving everything on a single thread. Together, these three parts solved the question I had asked on the first day: could 500,000 lines written by Agents be maintained and continuously iterated within a four-million-line legacy system, without becoming a black box no one dared to touch? Today, the answer is: **there have been no production incidents since launch, and the code is still being changed by new requirements every day.** ## The Story Is Not Over That concludes the first part. But you may have noticed a missing step. I skipped the journey from 500,000 lines written by Agents on branches to production. After Ultra Spec set the direction and Experts delivered the code, one guardrail still stood between the code and a safe merge and release. That guardrail had two parts: Ultra Review before merge, and Computer Use + Nightly Auto-Heal after merge, when people leave work and machines take over. Agent-generated code appears far faster than people can review it. Ultra Review uses multiple Agents in parallel to match code-generation speed. Computer Use + Nightly Auto-Heal lets machines run the discover-fix-verify loop themselves, moving people out of the bug pipeline. ![image.png](https://img.alicdn.com/imgextra/i4/O1CN01LeVMHy1ruzYkOV3Bg_!!6000000005692-49-tps-1080-505.webp) Together, we call these capabilities **Autonomous Engineering**. The method changes from people directing multiple Agents to machines running the loop themselves. [Contact us for more enterprise solutions ➔](https://page.aliyun.com/form/act465803565/index.htm?spm=a2c7g.act_detail.main.6.21921b90ToNJto) # I Used Qoder Experts to Assemble an AI Team—30-Minute Delivery, Promoted Tomorrow > Making good use of Qoder Experts Mode to assemble a multi-Agent expert team, delivering merge-to-main features through 30-minute parallel work. I'm a bit of a perfectionist—the moment I see a software update prompt, I upgrade right away. Sure enough, after upgrading Qoder to the latest V0.8, the Experts Mode I'd been waiting for finally went live! Much like the Team Agent in Claude Code, Qoder's Experts Mode also evolves AI from a single Agent to multi-Agent collaboration. The Leader Agent is responsible for breaking down tasks, assembling the team, and tracking progress, while the Frontend Dev, Backend Dev, and QA Tester work in parallel—you only need to review the plan and accept the results. I recorded a screen capture so everyone can get a feel for it in advance. > This whole piece is intense—buckle up, we're hitting the road. Beep beep, off we go. ## 01. What Is Experts Mode? Each expert in Experts Mode is a specially tuned SWE Agent (Software Engineering Agent). This so-called specialized tuning isn't merely swapping in a different prompt; it involves targeted optimization across model selection, parameter configuration, context management, tool calling, and more. For those who haven't downloaded it yet, copy this address and open it in your browser. > [https://qoder.com/ide](https://qoder.com/ide) After installing, open Qoder, create a new session, select \[Experts Team], switch to Experts Mode, and then enter your requirements to get started. We just provide the requirements, and the Leader Agent automatically assembles a team of experts who work in parallel—well-suited for complex, multi-step tasks. In this mode, the AI is an engineering team and you're the project manager, responsible for reviewing the plan and accepting the results. More importantly, different experts are automatically routed to the model best suited for them. The Leader Agent needs to do complex task planning and decision-making, so it might route to Opus, which has the strongest reasoning ability; the Backend Dev needs to write high-quality Java code, so it might route to GLM5, which excels at coding; the QA Tester needs to do browser automation testing, so it might route to Kimi K2.5, which supports vision capabilities. In plain terms: you give the requirements, and Experts Mode assembles a team to do the work for you. The Agent workhorse squad has arrived. As everyone knows, in real-world software development, a complex feature is never written by one person from start to finish. Instead, an architect or tech Leader does the design first, then splits it among different roles—frontend, backend, testing—for parallel development, and finally integration testing. Experts Mode is exactly this collaboration model. ## 02. Experts Mode in Action Talk is cheap—let's get straight to practice. ### A First Try I happen to have a PaiGit project on hand—a source-code management platform similar to GitCode, GitHub, and Gitee. Its current features include repository import, Issue management, Wiki generation, and more. > Prompt: Start the frontend and backend separately; let's first take a look at the current development progress. In the past, we'd need to start the backend in IntelliJ IDEA, then start the frontend with a separate frontend IDE, and then open the browser to visit the address. Right? And now? Qoder proactively brings up the frontend and backend for us, then assigns a test engineer, Alex, to help us check the project's development progress. He automatically opens the browser (note the Chrome in the top-left corner being controlled by automated testing software) and then verifies each feature one by one for us. And gives us a final report: the authentication module (fully implemented), the home browsing module (fully implemented), the repository details module (fully implemented), and the user dashboard (fully implemented). Afterward, it even thoughtfully asks whether we want to generate the project's Wiki. Of course we do. ### Going All Out Since Qoder told us there are still three directions to improve—Issue creation/editing/commenting, Wiki page creation/editing, and refining the download feature— we launch all three features in parallel right away. At this point, Experts Mode pulls the investigator Sam (Research Agent) into the Team, responsible for investigating the existing code state of the three modules, then formulating specific tasks for parallel development. Heh, this really is comfortable. Throughout the whole process, it felt like I didn't even have to use my brain—Qoder thought of everything for me. OK, after a short wait, the tasks are ready. Experts Mode pulls backend engineer Jimmy into the Team, responsible for Task 1: Issue module enhancement—editing issues and editing/deleting comments. Maybe Experts Mode felt one backend engineer was too slow, so it pulled in Bill too, responsible for Task 2: Wiki module enhancement—manually creating/editing/deleting Wiki pages. That's not all. Experts Mode then pulled in frontend engineer Robin as well, responsible for the frontend refinement of the download module: the admin review panel and the user download experience. Wow, a true Agent legion. Three experts working at the same time, without interfering with one another. I could see each expert's progress in real time on the interface. The efficiency of this parallel work is clearly higher than a single Agent executing serially. At this moment, I no longer knew whether I was living in a real-world team or in a cyberpunk future. I believe everyone here is a loyal fan of IntelliJ IDEA, but at this moment, I already felt a slight worry. AI IDEs are evolving way too fast. You can't help but marvel at Qoder's speed of evolution. After the development tasks were done, Experts Mode pulled in a new test engineer, Chris, responsible for verifying whether these three features were complete. Soon, the test results came in too. Issue editing and comment management — fully working. An "Edit" button was added to the top-right of the Issue detail page, supporting inline editing of the title and content. Each comment in the comments section has "Edit" and "Delete" links next to it (visible only to the author/admin), and deletion has a confirmation dialog to prevent accidental actions. Wiki creation/editing/deletion — fully working. The Wiki page added a "New Page" entry, and the creation form supports title + Markdown content input. Existing pages show an "Edit" button, and admins additionally see a red "Delete" button. Markdown renders well, with titles, lists, code blocks, and links all displaying correctly. Download module frontend refinement — working properly. The Dashboard added a "My Download Requests" section, showing request history and status tags (Approved/green). The admin area retained the "Pending Download Requests" panel, supporting approve/reject actions. The download button on the repository details page displays correctly according to status. As an old-timer programmer, seeing the results at this moment, I felt both delighted and astonished. The delight: Qoder's progress along the way is truly there for all to see. From now on, when I develop projects for everyone, all that's left is to burn tokens. The astonishment: after not looking for just a few days, Qoder has evolved to this point—completely exceeding my initial expectations for Experts Mode. Test engineer Chris even kept some of her testing evidence; click the image to view it. In this round of development, a total of 19 code files were modified—truly impressive. ### Verifying the Results Let's manually verify the results. For the Issue part here, confirmed no problems. Indeed, everything's fine. This kind of autonomous coordination among experts saved me a lot of communication overhead. In a traditional development process, this kind of frontend-backend format inconsistency would require manual intervention to coordinate. But in Experts Mode, the experts discovered the problem themselves, discussed the solution themselves, and only needed me to confirm at the key decision points. Overall, the delivery quality was quite good—reaching a standard that could be merged directly into the main branch. ## 03. The Advantages of Experts Mode Unlike a traditional single Agent, the advantages of Experts Mode are quite obvious. ① Planning first makes the overall architecture clearer. The Leader Agent produces a complete plan first; I review and confirm it before execution, so it's less likely to go off track. Even if there are adjustments during execution, they're adjustments within the overall framework and won't stray too far. ② Multiple experts work simultaneously—the Backend Dev writes the backend while the Frontend Dev writes the frontend, the Researcher does research, and the QA Tester prepares test cases. This level of parallelism is something a single Agent can't match. There's one thing I especially appreciate: every time a new feature is developed, the investigator steps in to ensure that all development tasks are crystal clear. This reduces a lot of rework. In the real world, development often outpaces requirements research, leading to later rework until the development matches what was wanted. Because sometimes even the client can't figure out their own requirements. But in Experts Mode, you can clearly feel that specialized division of labor guarantees quality. Each works deeply and thoroughly in their own domain. There's no situation of "knowing a bit of everything but mastering nothing." ## 04. How to Get Experts Mode Currently, there are several tiers for getting Experts Mode. Pro+, Ultra, and Teams users unlock it upon subscription—no application needed; just switch to Experts in the mode selector to use it. Well, I'm Pro+ (let me splurge 😄). Pro users can join the Waitlist for priority review, and will be notified by email once approved. > [https://qoder.com/ide?waitlist](https://qoder.com/ide?waitlist) By the way, new users who register for Qoder get a 14-day free Pro Trial and an extra 300 Credits. My usage suggestion: first use Agent Mode to get familiar with Qoder's basic operations, then upgrade to Experts Mode when you hit complex tasks. Don't jump straight into Experts Mode for simple tasks—that's a bit of overkill. ## Ending After heavily using Experts Mode for a while, I have one strong feeling: AI programming tools are evolving from "pair programming" to "engineering delivery." AI programming in the past meant AI assisting you in writing code. You were still the protagonist, and AI was the assistant. You had to tell the AI what to do at every step, check every line of code the AI wrote, and correct every mistake the AI made. Today's Experts Mode is an AI team delivering features for you. You've become the project manager, and the AI is the execution team. You're responsible for defining the problem, reviewing the plan, and making decisions; the AI is responsible for the concrete implementation, quality assurance, and progress tracking. In this mode, the AI is a team and you're a manager. The significance of this shift is profound. I hereby declare that Qoder Experts Mode will be the main force for my complex tasks from now on. This mode is just too good to use—oh my goodness. You can manage multiple tasks at the same time. Before, for a complex feature, you had to keep your full attention on the AI and couldn't do anything else. Now you toss the requirements to Experts Mode, go do something else, and just wait for the notification to accept the results. Your time is freed up to handle higher-level problems. Your role is being upgraded—from "the person who writes code" to "the person who defines problems, reviews plans, and makes decisions." This is exactly the direction programmers should evolve in the AI era. When AI can write code, a person's value lies not in the speed of writing code, but in understanding the business, controlling the architecture, and holding the line on quality. **\[The future of software development may truly be a model of "one person + one AI team." One person can manage multiple AI experts and complete tasks that previously required a whole team.]** This isn't the future—it's what's happening right now. # On My Favorite Qoder Features and Tips for Saving Credits > Making good use of Qoder's five core capabilities to boost efficiency, with six hands-on tips for saving Credits. Hi everyone, I'm Ren Fu, a technical developer from Cainiao Cross-Border Logistics. Today I'm honored to share, from a user-experience perspective, a best practice on how our team and I have used Qoder to boost R\&D efficiency. ## The Evolution of AI Programming We actually started exploring AI programming last year, or even earlier. Along the way, we tried a number of different AI programming tools, including but not limited to Aone Copilot, Suite Copilot, GitHub Copilot, and Claude Code, among other mainstream tools. Over the past year, AI programming tools underwent a rapid shift: from initial code-assistance tools, they gradually evolved into more intelligent and autonomous Agentic programming tools. Alongside this upgrade, the R\&D paradigm of AI Coding has been evolving too. We moved from the earliest Vibe Coding—producing the desired effect through natural-language input—and gradually shifted to the Spec Coding model, which produces high-quality, production-grade code through defined specification constraints. The core logic here is that we no longer intervene only after problems surface in the software engineering code; instead, we constrain things through specifications—including architecture design and more—solidifying the entire development process first, and generating higher-quality production code under clear constraints. But over the past year-plus of practice, we also found that these tools generally share some problems: - **Free improvisation**: Due to a lack of clear planning and description, agents hallucinate when understanding the business and generating code. - **Low efficiency**: The generated code isn't sufficient to be produced against complex business contexts. Developers lack well-designed instructions and standard constraints, so the AI can't clearly understand the requirements and fails to form effective solution designs and task breakdowns. - **Loss of key information**: Limited by the context length of past large models, multi-round interactions with AI accumulate a lot of information, causing the AI's comprehension to decline. As model capabilities have improved dramatically, these problems have now been alleviated. I started trying Qoder in October last year and found its capabilities more than enough to solve the issues above. ## Qoder's Core Capabilities and Systematic Approach ### Qoder's Five Core Capabilities #### 01 Core Capability 1: Repo Wiki This is my personal favorite feature. With a single click on the icon, it generates a detailed description of the current project, covering the project overview, technical architecture, development guide, deployment guide, and development standards—even including sequence diagrams and flowcharts. For those unfamiliar with the system, this helps them integrate into development quickly. In addition, it supports dynamic refresh, iterating based on Git code changes. #### 02 Core Capability 2: Rules Large models rely on general knowledge and lack specific contextual background. Through the Rules feature, Qoder lets you configure predefined context and R\&D coding standards (such as code-quality preferences) into a directory. You can write them by hand, or find best practices from open-source sites and drop them in. You can even have Qoder proactively generate rules for you during development (such as unit-test rules). #### 03 Core Capability 3: Memory During multi-round interactions, Qoder can generate a memory list based on communication style and personal preferences (such as user identity, area of expertise, commonly used tech stack, and environment configuration), and continuously load it in subsequent conversations. #### 04 Core Capability 4: MCP This mainly solves the connection-protocol problem when integrating an LLM with external data sources and external tools. We can register browser capabilities, drawing tools, or MCP services from other systems here, and Qoder will autonomously choose the tool as needed during interactions. #### 05 Core Capability 5: Skills This can be understood as a modular, reusable SOP workflow with domain-specific knowledge. It's stored in the .qoder/skills directory and teaches Qoder how to complete specific tasks. ### Comparing Qoder Quest Mode and Agent Mode - **Quest mode**: This is a Spec-driven form of autonomous programming. Based on the user's requirement input, it generates a structured requirements document, architecture design, and a To-do List. Once we confirm, the remaining tasks are handed off entirely to the AI to complete end-to-end delivery autonomously. - **Agent mode**: This is the mode we use more often in day-to-day development. You enter requirements in the dialog box, and the AI performs intent recognition and generates an execution plan. It loads Repo Wiki, Rules, Memory, and more into the context to understand and output code. Compared with Quest mode, Agent mode lets us terminate and correct in a timely manner during the exchange. Meanwhile, beyond its four built-in model tiers, Agent mode has also recently added support for bringing in other large models via an Alibaba Cloud subscription. ## Practical Cases in Daily Work ### Case 1: Building a Local Video Player from 0 to 1 As a developer—or someone who doesn't know how to code—if you want to implement a feature from 0 to 1, you can follow the flow of "requirements -> architecture design -> development and testing": - **Requirements phase**: Use prompts to specify the role, content, and deliverables, and output a product PRD document. - **Architecture design phase**: Bring the PRD into the context and have Qoder design the Spec specification and To-do items in conjunction with the PRD. - **Development and testing phase**: After reviewing the specification (including technology selection, risks, and architecture), enter the code-generation phase. If there are issues with the feature implementation, make corrections. ### Case 2: Adding a Report Menu Leveraging Repo Wiki's code-mapping capability, first discuss the approach with Qoder. Through prompt engineering (specifying the role, goal, and reference cases), have Qoder enter the Plan phase. It analyzes the current architecture and proposes a solution design. Finally, you select the solution you're satisfied with, generate the to-dos, and move into development. ## Best Practices for Saving Credits As a developer, while enjoying an efficient experience, you should also pay attention to saving costs. I've summarized six best practices: 1. **Start a new window for unrelated topics**: If you find that faulty input has caused context redundancy, or Qoder has misunderstood something or the topic is unrelated, terminate promptly to avoid wasting tokens. 2. **Choose the model tier as needed**: Use lightweight mode for simple requirements, and only use Auto or the ultimate mode for complex features, to balance cost and results. 3. **Optimize the code repository structure**: Reduce ineffective output. Qoder sometimes produces unit tests or MD documentation explanations by default; if you don't need them, explicitly exclude them in your instructions. 4. **Make expected behavior explicit**: Use configuration to exclude irrelevant directories, preventing them from being loaded into the context. 5. **Terminate immediately when it goes off track**: During interactions, if insufficient business-context input leads to wrong results, terminate promptly to avoid Qoder over-diverging. 6. **Roll back in an engineered way**: One approach is to use a positive example to have Qoder correct its previous round of output; another is to directly roll back the version via Git and regenerate. ### 1) The R\&D Paradigm Shifts, and Interaction Changes Over the past year-plus of AI programming practice, we've evolved from "old-school programming" to assisted programming, and now to Agentic autonomous programming. This is not just an upgrade in tool capabilities, but a shift in the R\&D paradigm—from simply trying out effects to a Spec Coding model that can truly reach production. With the emergence of MCP and Skills capabilities, future system design or interface design needs to focus more on how to make things more general and more reusable, so that AI can integrate better into the ecosystem. ### 2) Observability and Security Review Become Key Focuses As AI enters the production grade, code accountability becomes critical. We need observability, traceability, and security-review capabilities for AI-generated code to protect enterprises' sensitive data and hold the security line. ### 3) The Application Marketplace Diversifies, Beyond Just Coding Recently I've also been trying QoderWork. It has actually already brought in various capabilities—browsers, software systems, and more—through MCP or built-in skills. When you need to produce a document or file, you just describe the requirement, and it can collaborate with you to produce it like a colleague. Right now, AI Coding is no longer just about coding. From a technical standpoint, it's shifting from development to broader usage scenarios for more people, such as business and operations. In the future, we won't just embrace AI—we'll actively welcome the wave of AI. I look forward to Qoder driving an even greater leap in R\&D productivity. Let's build a smarter future together. # I Can't Code, but I Built an iOS App > A non-technical operations person made good use of Qoder to build a personal iOS movie app in a single day. Coming home from work one evening, I wanted to watch a movie. I opened one video app after another, and faced with the overwhelming lists of recommendations, I actually had no idea what to watch. After scrolling on the couch for twenty minutes, I ended up watching nothing and just went to sleep. I do operations on the Qoder team, and I can't code. But I had an idea: could I make an app that just recommends a few movies to me every day, so I can swipe through and decide what to watch tonight? Swipe away what I don't like, save what I do. No "recommended for you" algorithms, no community—just five movies a day, deciding by the posters. Inspired by my colleagues, after lunch one day I decided to stop just thinking about it. I opened Qoder and dove right in. What happened next surprised me. I did actually build it—an iOS app called "Daily Movie" that runs on an iPhone with a pretty decent experience. But the process was far from as smooth as I'd imagined: environment setup cost me two hours, the share feature caused the app to crash outright, and the UI, once built, obviously "looked AI-made." Later, scrolling through social media, I saw a popular analogy: thinking Vibe Coding will make you money is like buying a coffee machine and assuming you can open a café. I found it quite apt. Letting AI work purely on vibes can get you started, but it won't take you far. What eventually filled in the gaps for me was describing my requirements more clearly, and loading professional standards onto the Agent (both Qoder and the industry call these Skills—more on that later). ## From Idea to a Running App ### 01. Building the App Framework with Quest Mode I opened Qoder and selected Quest mode from the top-left corner. ![image.png](https://img.alicdn.com/imgextra/i3/O1CN01VVOWOd21ObiBx0Uqq_!!6000000006975-49-tps-530-502.webp) Once inside, there are three templates to choose from: - Spec-Driven (Code with Spec): suited for development tasks with clear requirements and a defined plan - Prototype Demos: suited for quickly turning an idea into a previewable prototype - Create Tools: suited for building tool-type applications ![image.png](https://img.alicdn.com/imgextra/i3/O1CN01eDwZeq1eJM0RnkCCx_!!6000000003850-49-tps-1080-402.webp) What I wanted to build was an app prototype, so I chose Prototype Demos. The way these three templates are divided is worth mentioning. Prototype Demos suits "I have an idea, let's get it running and see"—essentially structured Vibe Coding: you describe a vague goal, and the Agent helps you explore quickly. Code with Spec takes another path: first write clearly what you want and what the acceptance criteria are, then the Agent executes according to the Spec. One goes from vague to clear; the other from clear to done. As I'll get to later, I started with Prototype Demos this time, but what really kept the project from spinning out of control was exactly the "Spec-style thinking" I gradually learned along the way. There's an easy pitfall when collaborating with an Agent: the more you try to control every step, the more easily it goes astray. A better approach is to **describe the destination, not dictate the route**. A developer on my team put it well: clarify the intent, and the Spec will grow out naturally. So instead of saying "first create a React Native project, then configure the navigation routes...", I poured out the whole concept of "Daily Movie" and the features I wanted all at once: recommend 5 movies a day, support swiping up and down, allow saving favorites, and give it a cinema feel. The more specific the intent, the higher the completeness of the Agent's first version. Qoder Quest 1.0 responded quickly and gave me two options: one to run inside QStudio, and another to generate a standalone React Native project. Without much hesitation, I chose the second. ![image.png](https://img.alicdn.com/imgextra/i1/O1CN01zdGqTC1LyayGTnofK_!!6000000001368-49-tps-1080-408.webp) Before long, Quest had scaffolded the app prototype and told me where the project was located. Then came the problem: how do I set up the runtime environment? I grilled Quest with question after question. This step took about two hours, mainly getting stuck in two places: first, the wrong Node.js version meant dependencies wouldn't install; second, the iOS simulator needed to be downloaded separately, and the operations in Xcode were complete gibberish to me. At one point I stared at Xcode's enormous interface—full of buttons and menus I didn't recognize—and really wanted to just shut down the computer. Luckily, every time I hit an error I just screenshotted it and threw it at Qoder, and it could always help me pinpoint the cause and give a solution. Ironically, the "writing code" part was something Qoder handled in minutes; what really gave me trouble was everything outside the code: how to install the iOS simulator, those cryptic options in Xcode, and so on. The Agent can help you write code, but for these environment and tooling problems, Quest can only give you suggestions—the final call is still up to you. In the end, I successfully launched "Daily Movie" on the iOS simulator using Expo Go. ![image.png](https://img.alicdn.com/imgextra/i2/O1CN017T5aJ624rPSzo6xAB_!!6000000007444-49-tps-1080-609.webp) When the app ran for the first time, I froze for a few seconds, then took a screenshot and sent it to the work group chat. A colleague replied, "You made this?" and I said, "Strictly speaking, Quest made it, but the idea was mine." Even though it was still using mock data, both the main screen and the detail page were there, and the overall framework already looked the part. ### 02. Connecting Real Movie Data Fake data is ultimately fake; it had to be swapped for real movie information. But where would the data come from? I asked Qoder to recommend a suitable data source, and it suggested TMDb (The Movie Database), which offers a free movie data API. You can get information on millions of movies worldwide, it's usable right after registration, and it's perfect for personal projects. I followed the process to register an account, applied for developer access, and after getting the API Key I told Qoder to do the integration—and got the real data quite smoothly. Opening the app and seeing real movie posters load one after another, it instantly felt "alive." ![image.png](https://img.alicdn.com/imgextra/i4/O1CN01il87to28JkpEu3w5v_!!6000000007912-49-tps-1080-518.webp) ### 03. Killing the "AI Flavor" with Skills With the data in place, the next step was designing the UI. I told Qoder I wanted that dark-cinema feel: the movie cards should be big, with the poster as the star. Because the core of this app is deciding by the poster, if you can't see the poster clearly the whole experience falls apart. After tapping a card, you should see the full movie info—rating, director, cast, and synopsis—plus a favorite button and a link to the TMDb web page. For the UI design, I went through three or four rounds of adjustments: - The first version's cards were too small and the posters unclear → "Make the cards taller, taking up 2/3 of the screen height" - The rating numbers were too small → "Make the rating numbers one size bigger and bold" - The transition between the bottom text and the poster was too abrupt → "Add a gradient at the bottom of the poster, from transparent to black" After three rounds it still felt slightly off—I couldn't say exactly what was wrong, but there was a certain "AI flavor." The layout was fine, but the details lacked a sense of design. A lot of people probably relate to this feeling. AI-generated UIs often have spacing so even it feels mechanical, and color combinations that are technically correct but lack rhythm—like a dish cooked strictly by the recipe, with every gram of seasoning right, but missing that "wok breath." Y Combinator founder Paul Graham has a point: when you can't provide decoration, you must provide substance. AI is exactly the opposite—it can give you any decoration, but what it lacks is judgment, like whether this spacing should be 12px or 16px, whether this text should be bold or grayed out. Between "usable" and "wanting to use it," what's missing is exactly this layer of taste. AI itself has no taste, but you can load taste onto it. Some say giving AI taste could be the next transformer-level breakthrough. I don't know whether that's true, but at least in my project, the boost from installing "taste" onto the AI (namely, Skills) was greater than having it write ten more rounds of code. That's when I thought of trying Skills. Simply put, it means loading a domain-specific professional knowledge pack onto Qoder. I installed a Skill called `frontend-design`, then had Qoder re-optimize the UI according to the design standards inside it. Here's a small tip worth sharing: after installing a Skill, write your instructions specifically. The Skill gives the AI concrete design standards; the more precise your instructions, the more reliable the output. But honestly, at the time I didn't think that much—I just felt: after installing the Skill, the results were so much better. What makes a Skill different from an ordinary document is that it isn't written once and then left to gather dust; it's a "living standard" the AI reads every time it works. It takes effect each time it's used, and there's no problem of it becoming outdated. ![image.png](https://img.alicdn.com/imgextra/i1/O1CN01pVuos11QKMFnLRnbA_!!6000000001957-49-tps-1080-753.webp) The difference was quite obvious. The earlier UI was like "usable," while the UI after adding the Skill was like "wanting to use it." The cards' rounded corners, font hierarchy, and spacing rhythm all felt more comfortable—no longer that cookie-cutter AI aesthetic. Just like that, Quest handled the scaffolding and implementation, Skills handled quality control, and the final result genuinely surprised me. ![image.png](https://img.alicdn.com/imgextra/i1/O1CN01r0hraQ23TlP0ZI1ty_!!6000000007257-49-tps-1080-638.webp) ![image.png](https://img.alicdn.com/imgextra/i4/O1CN01TX3b4k1nSojSRf0UO_!!6000000005089-49-tps-1080-638.webp) ### 04. The Favorites Feature The requirement for this feature was straightforward: "I want to save movies I like into a favorites list, and still see them the next time I open the app. Favorites is a separate page that displays all the movies I've saved." Quest used something called AsyncStorage, which you can simply think of as a "little warehouse" on the phone's local storage. The favorited movie data is stored in this warehouse; close the app and reopen it and it's still there, viewable without an internet connection. This feature went smoothly, with no pitfalls. ![image.png](https://img.alicdn.com/imgextra/i1/O1CN01Ail3LC1UFYZ4YB0yi_!!6000000002488-49-tps-1080-638.webp) ### 05. Pitfalls in the Share Feature This step hit a big pitfall. Initially I told Qoder: "I want to make a beautiful image share card with the movie poster and a QR code, so users can save the image and share it." Qoder quickly implemented a solution for me: use react-native-view-shot to take a screenshot, and expo-sharing to share. But once installed, the app crashed outright. It was the kind of crash where you tap once, the screen goes black, and you're bounced back to the home screen—clean and decisive, no struggle at all. I threw the error message at Qoder, and after analyzing it, it told me: the native modules these features depend on can't run in the Expo Go environment; you need to build a standalone version of the app. And building a standalone version meant dealing with an Apple Developer account, signing certificates, and the like—too complicated for me. I wasn't ready to give up, so I tried two or three alternative approaches, each with its own problems. After going back and forth for over two hours, I was honestly quite frustrated, because the share card was a feature I'd especially wanted from the start. But in the end I accepted it and simplified the plan: switch to plain text content plus React Native's native share component. The final share content looked like this: ![image.png](https://img.alicdn.com/imgextra/i3/O1CN01IPSrCS1j4J4Z2Vxba_!!6000000004494-49-tps-600-580.webp) No fancy card, but usable and stable. The biggest lesson this taught me: build a running version first, and keep iterating on the complex stuff later. AI is indeed efficient on the "standard path," but when it hits platform boundaries (Expo Go's native module limits, Apple Developer's certificate system, etc.), it can only tell you where the problem is—it can't decide for you what to do. What finally pulled me out of the pit was one word: cut. I cut the image share card and switched to plain text, saving the time to polish the features that really mattered. Honestly, I was reluctant when cutting it, but looking back the decision was right—otherwise I'd have been stuck there. ### 06. Detail Polishing and Performance Optimization After the basic features were done, I spent more time polishing details with Quest: - **The "Not Interested" button**: Don't want to watch one of the 5 movies recommended today? Tap "Not for me" to swap in another. But you can only swap 3 times a day; once you're out, it prompts "Come back tomorrow." This design is intentional—if you could swap infinitely, the recommendations would turn into a random shuffle player, and the ritual feel of a "daily selection" would be gone. Also, appropriately limiting options actually helps you decide faster. Against decision paralysis, sometimes less is more. - **Daily refresh logic**: The five movies refresh based on UTC+8—that is, they update at midnight Beijing time. I discovered this bug through my own use: opening it at 1 a.m. still showed yesterday's lineup, and I thought the algorithm was broken. It took a while to troubleshoot before I realized it was a time zone issue. My operations instincts finally came in handy. - **Haptic feedback**: When swiping to switch, tapping buttons, or favoriting a movie, the phone gives a slight vibration feedback. After adding this, the experience improved noticeably, and the tactile feel came close to a native iPhone app. After tuning the feature details, I found a problem: the app would occasionally stutter a little when quickly swiping between movie cards, and poster image loading wasn't smooth enough. That's when I remembered my earlier experience installing `frontend-design`, so I searched through Skills and found one called `vercel-react-native-skills`—a collection of React Native and Expo best practices from the Vercel team, dedicated to solving mobile performance issues. After installing it, I told Qoder: "Referencing the `vercel-react-native-skills` standards, optimize the swiping performance of the movie card list and the poster image loading." ![image.png](https://img.alicdn.com/imgextra/i2/O1CN01uA0osU1I7ycYIDZ1a_!!6000000000847-49-tps-1080-789.webp) Following the rules in this Skill, Quest made a whole set of optimizations: poster images switched to a more efficient loading method, so when you open the app it first shows a blurred color block and then smoothly transitions to the high-definition image, with no white-screen flicker; the large background images were intelligently compressed, shrinking to a fraction of the size while looking no different in quality on the phone; and the underlying logic of the scrolling list was cleaned up, so content scrolled past automatically releases memory, and it won't get laggier the more you scroll. I have no idea how any of this works under the hood, but the results are real—after the optimization, swiping on a real device was noticeably smoother than before, and poster images appeared almost instantly. `frontend-design` made the UI no longer look like an AI template, and `vercel-react-native-skills` made the swiping and loading keep up with the speed of your hand. With the two Skills working together, the app's quality genuinely leveled up. ### 07. Some Thoughts After Finishing On social media, I found many people discussing similar things. Some say Vibe Coding will soon hit a wall—once a project gets big it starts to "drift," and the Agent, changing things bit by bit, can't even clearly say what it changed. Others say only SDD (Spec-Driven Development) is the GOAT: write the requirements and architecture docs clearly first, then let the Agent get to work. Looking back, isn't that exactly my journey? At first, letting AI work purely on vibes was indeed fast, but I got stuck on things like environment setup, platform limits, and design quality. Later I gradually learned to describe requirements more specifically and then loaded Skills onto the Agent, and only then did the results come through. There's also a particularly funny one: the product manager says with AI you don't have to wait for the designer's mockups; the designer says with AI you don't have to wait for the developer to write code; the developer says with AI you don't have to wait for the PM to write requirements. After reading that I thought: so as an operations person, have I just bypassed all three of them? After all, users having needs and feedback is eternal. Another line that resonated with me: "If the Agent can write code, it can also update the plan. Just let it do it." Skills go a step further—the Agent doesn't have to guess what a good SOP is; it just reads the standard and follows it. I now lean toward thinking that Vibe Coding is a great starting point, but it can't carry you the whole way on its own. If I had started with Code with Spec back then—spending 10 minutes to write the requirements and acceptance criteria clearly—I probably wouldn't have hit that share-feature pitfall at all. Of course, without that initial "let me just try it" impulse, I might still be just thinking about it. So you need both; it's just a matter of order and proportion. Karpathy says future software will become highly personalized: everyone will have AI generate an app on the spot for their own needs, use it and toss it, without downloading someone else's generic product from the App Store. He calls this "bespoke software," and made an analogy: today's software is like a castle built from bricks, while future software is more like a pot of boiling soup—code cooked up as needed, and gone once you've drunk it. ![image.png](https://img.alicdn.com/imgextra/i2/O1CN0108cdl31QwN7wr49ME_!!6000000002040-49-tps-902-686.webp) The moment I saw it, I thought: isn't this describing "Daily Movie"? Five movies a day, swipe up and down, decide by the poster—this kind of need is so specific that no one in the App Store would ever build one that perfectly fits my taste. But I built it in a single day, and even though it's just for myself, the experience suits me far better than those "big and comprehensive" movie apps. That said, looking back after finishing, there's something rather ironic: what took me the most time wasn't "building" it, but "turning it into an iOS app." Qoder wrote the code quickly, and the rest of the time was all spent wrestling with the iOS ecosystem: Xcode, the simulator, Expo Go's native module limits, Apple Developer certificates. It's 2026, and 99% of services still don't have AI-friendly interfaces—users still have to operate web pages by hand. "What am I, a computer?" I deeply relate; that's exactly how I felt staring at Xcode. If, as Karpathy says, future software doesn't need to be an app, doesn't need the App Store, doesn't need signing certificates, and code is generated on demand and gone after use—then half the pitfalls in this article simply wouldn't exist. But we're not there yet; we're stuck in a transition period: AI's ability to write code has arrived, but the infrastructure to actually run that code is still the old way. Still, for people with specific needs who are willing to tinker, the barrier really is much lower than before—and it's dropping fast. ### 08. The Final Result At this point, the development of "Daily Movie" reached a milestone. I installed Expo Go on a real iPhone, scanned the code to run it, and the overall experience was much better than I'd expected—smooth swiping, silky interactions. To sum up the experience of the final version of the app: - Ready to use right away, no registration or login needed - 5 hand-picked TMDb-rated (6+) movies a day, browsed by swiping up and down - Tap to view details, favorite and share in one tap - Enhanced with haptic feedback, with a tactile feel close to native