Category: AI Strategy

  • Master Burger Prompting: Build a High-Impact AI Resume Coach with Proven LLM Structures

    Master Burger Prompting: Build a High-Impact AI Resume Coach with Proven LLM Structures

    I turned the playful idea of “burger prompting” into a rigorous framework for building an AI resume coach that delivers consistent, high‑quality guidance. In product management, repeatability matters: I want dependable LLM behavior, tight control of outputs, and measurable outcomes. This approach gives me exactly that—clear roles, crisp constraints, and an evaluation loop that raises the quality bar with each iteration.

    Here’s the metaphor in practice. The top bun sets the role and goal; the middle layers stack context, examples, constraints, and tools; the patty is the core algorithm and output schema; and the bottom bun locks in the quality bar and follow-up behavior. When I apply this structure to an AI resume coach, I get results that feel expert, empathetic, and actionable—without rewriting the prompt every time.

    Top bun: I define the system role and success criteria. I’ll say, “Act as an experienced hiring manager and resume coach for SaaS product roles” and specify the north star: improve clarity, impact, and ATS alignment without fabricating experience. I also name the audience (mid-career PMs, early-career candidates, or executives) so tone and calibration stay consistent across sessions.

    First layer: I load precise context. That includes the candidate’s resume, the target job description, and any constraints (for example: keep bullets under 22 words, lead with impact, quantify outcomes). I also clarify non-goals (no inflated titles, no unverifiable claims). This is where I set the voice: confident, concise, and supportive, not generic or robotic.

    Second layer: I attach the tools and references that anchor outputs. A skill taxonomy for product roles, a style guide for resume bullets, and a scoring rubric (impact, clarity, relevance, keyword coverage) help the model prioritize. To protect quality, I call out context window management rules—what to include or trim—and how to summarize long inputs without losing signal.

    Third layer: I add exemplars. Few-shot examples of excellent resume bullets (“before” and “after”) teach the model what “great” looks like. I also include a counterexample or two to prevent bad habits (for instance, over-indexing on buzzwords). Exemplars act like taste buds; they steer nuance without overfitting.

    Patty: I define the core algorithm and the output schema. The algorithm moves in stages: diagnose the resume against the job, identify 3–5 high-leverage improvements, rewrite bullets with quantified outcomes, and propose a summary that highlights relevant wins. I then specify the output sections: a brief diagnosis, rewritten bullets mapped to the job’s requirements, an ATS keyword coverage table, and a confidence score with rationale. A tight schema produces consistent, scannable outputs that are easy to evaluate—and easy to ship.

    Bottom bun: I lock in the quality bar and the follow-up behavior. If inputs are incomplete, the coach must ask clarifying questions before rewriting. If claims lack evidence, it should suggest proof points (metrics, scope, stakeholders) rather than embellish. Finally, I require a self-check pass where the coach verifies that each bullet demonstrates impact, relevance, and clarity before presenting the final result.

    Implementation blueprint: I create a reusable prompt template with clear system and user sections, then parameterize it for different roles (PM, design, data). If I have a library of style guides or skill matrices, I wire it into a retrieval layer so the model references the right material for each job. This setup makes the coach portable across tools and easy to maintain as the taxonomy evolves.

    Evaluation and iteration: I practice eval-driven development. I assemble a small, representative test set of resumes and job descriptions, define acceptance criteria (readability score, keyword coverage, human rater alignment), and A/B test prompt variants. I track drift and tighten the schema whenever outputs start to meander. The goal isn’t just impressive demos—it’s reliable performance at scale.

    Governance guardrails: A trustworthy resume coach respects privacy-by-design. I strip PII where possible, avoid storing raw resumes beyond what’s necessary, and document bias checks so advice doesn’t disadvantage non-traditional candidates. Clear data governance and risk management keep the product shippable and compliant as it grows.

    When I apply burger prompting end to end, the AI resume coach becomes a repeatable system: fast, accurate, and measurably helpful. The structure teaches the model how to behave; the evals keep it honest; and the schema makes the result easy to review, refine, and ship. If you want dependable LLM outcomes, start with a great bun—and don’t skimp on the patty.


    Inspired by this post on Pendo – Best Practices.


    Book a consult png image
  • How I Make Diagnostic AI Trustworthy: Confidence Levels, Citations, and Evals That Win Trust

    How I Make Diagnostic AI Trustworthy: Confidence Levels, Citations, and Evals That Win Trust

    Trust is the true currency of diagnostic analytics. If customers can’t verify why a system reached a conclusion—or how confident it is—adoption stalls. That’s why this line resonated so strongly with my own playbook: Amplitude used confidence levels, citations, and evals to build a diagnostic AI tool accurate enough to earn customer trust.

    Confidence levels are my first non-negotiable. When a model flags a root cause or prescribes a next step, I want the UI to state its certainty upfront and in plain language—ideally with calibrated ranges and a brief rationale. This simple pattern sets the right expectations, reduces over-trust, and supports AI risk management by making uncertainty visible. In practice, we pair this with clear UX writing so users understand what “High,” “Medium,” or “Low” confidence really means in their workflow.

    Citations are the second pillar. Every diagnostic needs a breadcrumb trail back to source data: which metrics were analyzed, what time window was used, and how the insight was derived. Linking directly to the underlying chart, query, or dashboard reinforces data governance and shortens the path from “interesting” to “actionable.” When customers can click through to verify the evidence, they gain the confidence to make decisions—fast.

    Evals complete the trio. Before and after launch, I hold the team to eval-driven development: offline benchmarks, targeted scenario tests, and live performance monitoring that mirrors real customer use. We define success criteria for precision/recall, false-positive thresholds, and latency, then wire those checks into CI/CD so regressions are caught early. Continuous evals aren’t just QA; they’re the heartbeat of an AI workflow that keeps insights reliable at scale.

    Operationally, these practices compound. Confidence levels help prioritize follow-up analysis, citations accelerate collaboration across product and data teams, and evals keep quality high even as models, data, and usage evolve. Together, they form a pragmatic AI strategy that aligns product discovery with measurable outcomes and safeguards customer trust where it matters most—inside daily decisions.

    If you’re building a diagnostic AI tool, start with these three building blocks and resist the urge to hide uncertainty. Make it legible. Make it verifiable. And measure it continuously. That’s how we turn powerful models into trustworthy products customers depend on.


    Inspired by this post on Amplitude – Perspectives.


    Book a consult png image
  • What It Takes to Build AI-Powered Products: A Senior Engineer’s Playbook and Mindset

    What It Takes to Build AI-Powered Products: A Senior Engineer’s Playbook and Mindset

    I spend my days partnering with technical leaders who bridge invention and impact. The role of a Senior Software Engineer at Amplitude working on AI-powered products epitomizes how engineering and product fuse to ship customer value with speed, safety, and conviction. In my world, that fusion isn’t accidental—it’s designed, measured, and relentlessly improved.

    When I form product trios—engineering, product, and design—we clarify the problem, the target users, and the measurable outcomes before a single line of code ships. This is how empowered product teams operate: we trade feature wish-lists for hypotheses, align on success metrics, and commit to learning loops that turn ambiguity into progress.

    On the technical front, modern AI systems demand a retrieval-first pipeline, robust data contracts, and a thoughtful orchestration layer for LLMs. I expect eval-driven development to be first-class: offline unit-style evals for prompts and policies, and online evals that track behavior changes and quality at scale. This rigor gives us confidence to ship, learn, and iterate without burning cycles on guesswork.

    Velocity matters, and so does reliability. I look for CI/CD that makes small, safe, frequent releases the default, and for DORA metrics to shine a light on delivery health. Pair that with platform scalability, clear SLOs, and pragmatic SRE practices, and teams earn the right to move fast without breaking trust.

    Responsible AI is non-negotiable. We operationalize AI risk management with guardrails, input/output filters, red-teaming, and human-in-the-loop review where stakes are high. Data governance and privacy-by-design ensure that our creativity never outruns our compliance—because durable products are built on durable trust.

    Impact comes from evidence. I advocate for disciplined A/B testing, careful minimum detectable effect (MDE) planning, and retention analysis that ties feature work to real business outcomes. Clear analytics pipelines and transparent dashboards keep stakeholders aligned and make good decisions repeatable.

    Ultimately, the Senior Software Engineer I want to collaborate with is a builder who balances systems thinking with customer empathy: someone who can design reliable architectures, instrument the work with meaningful evals, and co-lead discovery to de-risk the roadmap. When we combine that mindset with crisp execution, AI-powered products stop being demos—and start becoming indispensable.


    Inspired by this post on Amplitude – Perspectives.


    Book a consult png image
  • Beyond the Support Iceberg: Gradient Labs’ Multi‑Agent Breakthrough That Actually Gets Work Done

    Beyond the Support Iceberg: Gradient Labs’ Multi‑Agent Breakthrough That Actually Gets Work Done

    When a customer reports a stolen credit card, the frontline play seems straightforward—freeze it. But that’s just the visible tip of a much larger customer support iceberg. Underneath sits the real work: dispute filings, fraud investigations, merchant communications, proactive outreach, and follow-ups that unfold over days across multiple systems. Most AI support tools only touch the surface; they don’t coordinate or close the loop. That gap is exactly where my product instincts kick in—and why this story matters.

    I recently listened to a conversation with Jack Taylor (Product Engineer) and Ibrahim Faruqi (AI Engineer) from Gradient Labs, an AI-native startup building agents that automate the full scope of customer support in fintech. Their approach resonated with the challenges I see every day in customer support automation: fragmented workflows, regulatory complexity, and the need for human-in-the-loop moments. Gradient Labs has architected a platform with three coordinating agents—"inbound, back office, and outbound"—all built on a shared foundation of "natural language procedures, modular skills, and configurable guardrails."

    What impressed me most was how they "Let non-technical subject matter experts define agent behavior through natural language procedures—no coding required." That’s a powerful way to remove engineering bottlenecks, accelerate iteration, and keep the domain experts—those closest to fraud, disputes, and compliance—directly in control. In my experience, this design choice alone can compress lead times from weeks to hours and aligns perfectly with continuous discovery and eval-driven development.

    At the heart of their platform is orchestration. They "Architected a state machine orchestrator that manages turns, triggers, and skill selection across long-running conversations." That "turn" architecture is built for the messy reality of async, multi-day support. They treat "Skills as modular agent capabilities—and how they're scoped deterministically per turn," ensuring the system stays predictable and auditable. They also confront a nuanced challenge most teams dodge: "Defining "done" for outbound agents when the customer isn't the one ending the conversation." That’s where deterministic criteria, timers, and clearly scoped outcomes matter as much as the model beneath.

    Compliance is not an afterthought—it’s baked into the core. Gradient Labs "Built guardrails as binary classifiers with eval pipelines, tuning for high recall on critical regulatory checks." In regulated domains, optimizing for recall on high-stakes checks is the right call; you can tolerate a few extra reviews, but you can’t miss a potential fraud signal. More broadly, they frame "Guardrails as classification problems: balancing recall and precision for regulatory compliance." That mindset is exactly how I like to merge AI risk management with product velocity.

    Crucially, they avoid the trap of fully autonomous optimism. "Ask a Human: a tool call that brings humans into the loop for approvals or missing APIs" gives the system a safety valve for novel or high-risk cases. I also appreciated the explicit "Ask A Human Tool" pattern, which cleanly integrates approvals, policy exceptions, or data gaps without derailing the workflow.

    Quality doesn’t happen by accident. They "Designed an auto-eval system that samples conversations for human review to catch edge cases and build labeled datasets" and built "Auto-eval pipelines that flag conversations for manual review and feed labeled datasets." That closed-loop evaluation flow is the backbone of sustainable performance in agentic AI. Combine this with targeted instrumentation—think CSAT, first contact resolution, deflection rate, time to resolution, and escalation rate—and you get a real Agent Analytics discipline, not just logs and dashboards.

    The "iceberg" metaphor is more than a catchy visual. It’s a blueprint for scoping multi-agent platforms that work across the entire customer journey. With "inbound, back office, and outbound" agents coordinating on complex tasks like fraud disputes, the system can transition cleanly from intake to investigation to resolution—without dropping context or asking customers to repeat themselves. This is what genuine customer support automation looks like when it’s grounded in real operations.

    Under the hood, the team leans into robust design choices that matter at scale: the "Complexities of Natural Language Input" are managed with explicit state and skill scoping, "Deterministic Skill Execution" reduces flakiness, and "Customer-Specific Guardrails" ensure compliance remains aligned to each client’s policies. Add their focus on "APIs and Customer Tools Integration" and the result is a platform that can actually take action—not just answer questions.

    If you’re building in this space, here’s how I’d apply these lessons. Start by mapping the iceberg: enumerate back-office steps, approvals, and SLAs that follow the initial customer touchpoint. Capture those steps as "natural language procedures" owned by SMEs. Implement a "state machine orchestrator" to manage "turns, triggers, and skill selection" across multi-day workflows. Treat "guardrails as classification problems" and tune for high recall on high-stakes checks. Introduce "Ask a Human" early to handle missing APIs or policy exceptions. Finally, operationalize learning with "auto-eval pipelines" and tight, eval-driven development loops. That’s how multi-agent platforms deliver measurable outcomes in fintech support.

    If you want to hear the full conversation, you can listen on Spotify or Apple Podcasts. You’ll also hear a nod to the "Incident.io episode – Referenced in the conversation," and a thoughtful take on the "Future of Multi-Agent Systems."

    In short: this is a shift from simple Q&A bots to agents that can coordinate, comply, and complete. It’s the kind of multi-agent platform work that moves the needle for customer support in fintech—and a compelling template for any product leader scaling agentic AI and AI workflows beyond the tip of the iceberg.


    Inspired by this post on Product Talk.


    Book a consult png image
  • Product Manager Cover Letter Mastery for 2026: Proven Steps, Templates, and AI Workflows

    Product Manager Cover Letter Mastery for 2026: Proven Steps, Templates, and AI Workflows

    Every week I review dozens of applications for PM roles, and in under 30 seconds I decide whether to keep reading. In 2026, the bar is higher than ever: clarity, outcomes, and customer insight beat buzzwords every time.

    Learn how to write a standout product manager cover letter with steps, examples, templates, and smart AI workflows to make your application stand out.

    I start with a crisp opening that communicates my value proposition in one sentence: the product problem I love solving, the customer I serve, and the measurable outcomes I drive. Then I connect my experience to the role’s core responsibilities—product discovery, product positioning, go-to-market strategy, and stakeholder management—without rehashing my resume.

    A strong PM cover letter follows a simple structure: a hook with context, one paragraph proving product management leadership through outcomes vs output OKRs, a paragraph on how I partner with empowered product teams and engineering to ship, and a closing line that shows I understand the company’s roadmap and where I can help now.

    To make this concrete, I include brief examples that show decisions, not duties: how I translated ambiguous customer signals into a roadmap, how I balanced platform scalability with speed, and how I measured success with activation, retention, and adoption—not vanity metrics.

    Templates help me move fast, but I always tailor. I mirror the job’s language, highlight the few experiences that map 1:1, and cut everything else. I quantify impact where possible, link outcomes to business value, and keep it to 200–300 words so hiring managers can scan.

    I also use smart AI workflows to accelerate the craft without sacrificing authenticity. My LLMs for product managers playbook: extract the role’s competencies, generate a draft outline, compare multiple versions with light A/B testing, and refine tone and clarity. Tools should augment judgment; the final voice is mine.

    If you’re applying now, assemble your core template, slot in two role-specific examples, and close with a confident ask for next steps. With the right structure, clear outcomes, and a little AI leverage, your product manager cover letter will stand out in any stack.


    Inspired by this post on Product School.


    Book a consult png image
  • Plan Your 2026 Product Conference Calendar: Top Events, Locations, and Insider Tips

    Plan Your 2026 Product Conference Calendar: Top Events, Locations, and Insider Tips

    I’m curating a living list of 2026 product conferences to help product managers, product leaders, and empowered product teams plan ahead with confidence. I use this calendar to align my team’s discovery work, roadmapping, and go-to-market strategy—and to prioritize conference networking and learning that moves the needle on product-led growth.

    This list is not exhaustive. If there’s a product conference missing that should be here, please send it to conferences@producttalk.org. I’ll keep updating this as new events are announced so you have a reliable guide throughout the year.

    I’ll be teaching a workshop and speaking at the Product at Heart conference in June in Hamburg, Germany. If you plan to attend, be sure to say hi.

    Are you looking for the 2025 Product Conferences list? Find it here.

    How I use this guide: I map events to our quarterly OKRs (outcomes vs output OKRs), focus on sessions that sharpen product discovery, stakeholder management, and product roadmapping and sprint planning, and bring a clear plan for takeaways I can apply the day I’m back. If you’re exploring AI Strategy and LLMs for product managers, you’ll find several strong options below.

    January

    Jan 28 — Product-Led Summit — Washington, DC, USA

    Jan 30–31 — Prdkt+ — Cairo, Egypt

    February

    Feb 1–4 — WebSummit — Doha, Qatar

    Feb 2–20 — DeveloperWeek Hackathon — San Jose, CA, USA & Virtual

    Feb 4 — DDX Innovation & UX Conference — Tokyo, Japan

    Feb 4–5 — UX360 Virtual Summit — Virtual

    Feb 7–8 — DDX Innovation & UX Conference — Dubai, UAE

    Feb 18–20 — DeveloperWeek — San Jose, CA, USA

    Feb 18–20 — ProductWorld — San Jose, CA, USA

    Feb 24 — ProductCon — London, UK

    Feb 24–25 — axe-con — Virtual

    Feb 24–25 — Product-Led Summit — Austin, TX, USA

    March

    Mar 9–10 — Gartner Product Leadership Conference — Grapevine, TX, USA

    Mar 12–18 — SXSW — Austin, TX, USA

    Mar 23–26 — The Annual ACM Conference on Intelligent User Interface — Paphos, Cyprus

    Mar 26 — Chief Product Officer Summit — New York, NY, USA

    Mar 26–27 — Product Operations Summit — New York, NY, USA

    Mar 26–27 — Product-Led Summit — New York, NY, USA

    April

    Apr 1–2 — Product-Led Summit — Denver, CO, USA

    Apr 11 — ProductCamp — Phoenix, AZ, USA

    Apr 13–14 — Business of Software — Cambridge, UK

    Apr 13–17 — ACM CHI — Barcelona, Spain

    Apr 14 — Chief Product Officer Summit — Palo Alto, CA, USA

    Apr 15–16 — UX Nordic — Aarhus, Denmark

    Apr 15 — AI Product Summit — San Jose, CA, USA

    Apr 20–21 — Product at Heart Leadership — Hamburg, Germany

    April 22–23 — UX360 NA — Atlanta, GA, USA

    May

    May 7–8 — ProductWorld 2026 — Opatija, Croatia

    May 9 — DDX Innovation & UX Conference — Munich, Germany

    May 11–13 — UXDX — New York, NY, USA & Virtual

    May 11–14 — Web Summit — Vancouver, Canada

    May 12–13 — Product Operations Summit — Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    May 12–15 — UXLx User Experience — Lisbon, Portugal

    May 13 — Leading the Product Leaders Forum — Melbourne, Australia

    May 13–15 — SaaStr Annual — San Mateo, CA, USA

    May 14 — Leading the Product Conference — Melbourne, Australia

    May 19 — La Product Conf — Paris, France

    May 20 — Leading the Product Leaders Forum — Sydney, Australia

    May 20 — ProductCon — New York, NY, USA

    May 21 — Leading the Product Conference — Sydney, Australia

    May 27–29 — UXDX EMEA — Berlin, Germany & Virtual

    May 22 — La Product Conf — Madrid, Spain

    May 27–28 — Dublin Tech Summit — Dublin, Ireland

    May 28–29 — Chief Product Officer Summit — Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    May 28–29 — Product-Led Summit — Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    June

    Jun 8–11 — Web Summit — Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

    Jun 15–16 — #mtpcon: A Mind the Product conference — London, UK

    Jun 16 — Growth Minded Superheroes — Frankfurt, Germany

    Jun 17–18 — Product-Led Summit — Seattle, WA, USA

    Jun 22–26 — UXPA International — Las Vegas, NV, USA

    Jun 23–24 — UX360 EU — Berlin, Germany

    Jun 24–25 — Product-Led Summit — London, UK

    Jun 26 — Product at Heart Conference — Hamburg, Germany

    July

    Jul 2–3 — Agile on the Beach — Falmouth, UK

    Jul 26–28 — Agile2026 — Washington, DC, USA

    Jul 26–31 — HCI International — Montreal, Canada

    August

    Aug 5 — ProductCon AI: Online Edition — Virtual

    September

    Sep 16–17 — uxcon — Vienna, Austria

    Sep 16–18 — Hatch Conference — Berlin, Germany & Virtual

    Sep 17 — DDX Innovation & UX Conference — San Diego, CA, USA

    Sep 17 — Chief Product Officer Summit — San Francisco, CA, USA

    Sep 22–23 — Product-Led Summit — San Francisco, CA, USA

    Sep 22–23 — Product Operations Summit — San Francisco, CA, USA

    Sep 28–30 — B2B Summit EMEA — London, UK

    Sep 30–Oct 2 — GOTO Copenhagen — Copenhagen, Denmark

    October

    Oct 14–15 — Product-Led Summit — Berlin, Germany

    Oct 16 — Just Product 2026 — Munich, Germany

    Oct 26–27 — Y Oslo — Oslo, Norway

    Oct 28 — Product-Led Summit — Sydney, Australia

    Oct 28–29 — Product-Led Summit — Boston, MA, USA

    November

    Nov 9–12 — Web Summit — Lisbon, Portugal

    Nov 11–12 — Product-Led Summit — Toronto, Canada

    Nov 11–12 — Leading Design — London, UK

    If you’re attending any of these, let me know—conference networking is always better with a plan and a friendly face. And if you’ve got a must-attend event on your radar, send it to conferences@producttalk.org so I can keep this guide comprehensive for the community.


    Inspired by this post on Product Talk.


    Book a consult png image
  • Master AI as a Product Manager in 12 Months: My 2026 Roadmap to Ship Smarter, Faster

    Master AI as a Product Manager in 12 Months: My 2026 Roadmap to Ship Smarter, Faster

    AI isn’t a side quest for product managers anymore—it’s the skill stack that will define how we discover problems, prototype solutions, and ship value in 2026. Over the last few cycles, I’ve watched teams that embrace AI Strategy outperform on speed, signal, and stakeholder confidence. This roadmap is the approach I use to build capability in a structured, outcome-driven way—so we ship smarter, faster, and more impact-driven products.

    "AI for PMs in 2026: why it matters, what to learn, and a 12-month AI roadmap to master product skills and ship smarter, faster, impact-driven products."

    Here’s how I frame what to learn and why: focus on enduring capabilities first (problem discovery, experimentation, ethics), then layer the AI product toolbox (LLMs for product managers, retrieval-first pipeline patterns, AI workflows), and finally operationalize with outcomes vs output OKRs. The goal isn’t to sprinkle gen ai on everything—it’s to make better decisions, reduce cycle time, and unlock product-led growth in measurable ways.

    Months 1–3: Foundations. I build literacy around model behavior and constraints, context window management, and prompting patterns. I pair this with data governance and privacy-by-design basics so we avoid rework later. Practically, I assemble an AI product toolbox (evaluation checklists, prompt libraries, retrieval-first pipeline templates) and apply them to product discovery—summarizing research, clustering feedback, and sharpening value propositions without losing critical nuance.

    Months 4–6: Prototyping and evaluation. This is where ideas become testable artifacts. I use gen ai for product prototyping to create UX mocks, PRDs, and in-app guides rapidly, then validate with eval-driven development. I run lean experiments (A/B testing with a clear minimum detectable effect), wire up analytics to Amplitude, and track activation and retention signals. The mantra: instrument early, measure causally, and iterate based on evidence.

    Months 7–9: Shipping AI-enabled workflows. I partner with product trios to integrate AI into real user journeys—customer support ai strategy, CRM integration, and guided onboarding are common wins. We explore agentic AI for complex multi-step tasks, add safeguards for AI risk management, and pressure-test systems with threat detection and response playbooks. As features reach production, we monitor deployment frequency and tighten feedback loops to protect quality while accelerating learning.

    Months 10–12: Scale and governance. I operationalize what works with product roadmapping and sprint planning aligned to outcomes vs output OKRs. We codify playbooks for continuous discovery, define eval gates for new AI features, and unify analytics so teams can compare lift apples-to-apples. Stakeholder management matures into clear narratives: what shipped, what moved, what’s next—so leadership sees compounding value, not just activity.

    Throughout the year, I keep the focus on real users and real metrics: fewer hops from insight to iteration, tighter loops between problem and prototype, and crisper communication around trade-offs. The result is a team that can translate AI capabilities into differentiated product experiences—reliably and responsibly. If you follow this path, you’ll enter 2026 with the confidence to lead, the systems to scale, and the evidence to prove it.


    Inspired by this post on Product School.


    Book a consult png image
  • Stop Tuning Prompts: How Context Engineering 10x’d Accuracy and Adoption in Our AI Platform

    Stop Tuning Prompts: How Context Engineering 10x’d Accuracy and Adoption in Our AI Platform

    "The best AI products improve more through context engineering than prompt tinkering." I’ve seen this play out repeatedly in high-stakes, enterprise use cases: substantive gains come from how we curate, structure, and deliver context to models—not from wordsmithing. When we started treating context as a product surface, performance climbed, hallucinations dropped, and teams shipped with more confidence.

    Here are four key decisions we made to improve our AI context.

    First, we moved to a retrieval-first pipeline. We unified trusted sources—CRM records, support knowledge bases, product telemetry, and governance-approved docs—behind hybrid retrieval (semantic + keyword) with strong metadata ranking. This let us constrain generations to verifiable facts, apply privacy-by-design rules at the edge, and practice disciplined context window management so every token carried its weight. Freshness policies, source-level confidence scores, and lightweight schemas kept the system precise and auditable.

    Second, we made eval-driven development non-negotiable. Every change to context assembly goes through offline evals and online A/B testing with clear acceptance thresholds (e.g., task success, groundedness, time-to-first-answer, and deflection rate). We sized tests with minimum detectable effect (MDE) and tied them to outcomes vs output OKRs so we weren’t just shipping more prompts—we were shipping measurable improvements that mattered to customers.

    Third, we personalized context based on intent and role. We built AI workflows that detect user intent, segment by persona, and dynamically assemble context: recent account activity for customer success, policy-safe excerpts for finance, and fine-grained reasoning chains for product teams. For conversational and voice AI agent experiences, we combined short-term conversation memory with scoped, long-term account memory to preserve relevance without bloating the prompt. This agentic AI pattern ensured faster, safer, and more helpful responses.

    Fourth, we operationalized context as a first-class platform capability. We invested in data governance (ownership, lineage, and redaction), instrumentation (Amplitude analytics for usage, retrieval hit rates, and failure modes), and CI/CD guardrails for context updates. Product trios partnered with SRE to monitor drift, while side-by-side comparisons and human-in-the-loop reviews turned frontline feedback into structured improvements. The result: a durable system that improves continuously instead of relying on one-off prompt tweaks.

    Context engineering isn’t glamorous, but it compounds. By prioritizing retrieval-first design, rigorous evaluation, intent-aware assembly, and operational excellence, we transformed our AI features into dependable, enterprise-ready capabilities. If you’re serious about LLMs for product managers and sustainable AI Strategy, shift your energy from clever prompts to robust context—and watch adoption and trust follow.


    Inspired by this post on Amplitude – Perspectives.


    Book a consult png image
  • Inside a Staff AI Engineer’s Impact: How Cross-Functional AI Initiatives Drive Product Wins

    Inside a Staff AI Engineer’s Impact: How Cross-Functional AI Initiatives Drive Product Wins

    When I think about the roles that truly move the needle on AI Strategy and product outcomes, the Staff AI Engineer stands out. This is the person who can translate research into repeatable AI workflows, partner with product to solve real user problems, and operationalize models in a way that scales. It’s where innovation meets accountability—and where product management leadership meets hands-on engineering craft.

    Ram Soma is a Staff AI Engineer at Amplitude, leading various AI initiatives across the company. He has a background in data science and machine learning engineering.

    What does that look like in practice from my seat? It starts with precise problem framing and measurable success criteria. I align with a Staff AI Engineer on eval-driven development and instrumentation so we can track impact from prototype to production. With Amplitude analytics operating as a unified analytics platform, we can quantify user activation, retention analysis, and feature adoption, then iterate through continuous discovery with tight feedback loops.

    Execution quality hinges on robust experimentation. Together, we design A/B testing plans with minimum detectable effect (MDE) targets, isolate confounding variables, and build evaluation harnesses that reflect real-world UX constraints. We also agree on rollout strategies—staged deployments, guardrails, and observability—so we can learn safely while preserving customer trust and performance SLAs.

    On the technical approach, I look for pragmatic architectures that balance speed and reliability: a retrieval-first pipeline for grounding, judicious use of LLMs for product managers to instrument prompts and policies, and agentic AI patterns only when task decomposition truly reduces complexity. Just as important are privacy-by-design and data governance practices from day one, because responsible innovation beats retrofitting controls after the fact.

    Finally, the magic happens in empowered product teams and product trios. When product, design, and Staff AI Engineering operate with shared context and clear constraints, we compress decision cycles and ship value faster. That’s how AI initiatives evolve from demos to durable capabilities—and how we enable product-led growth with measurable results that customers feel, not just features they see.


    Inspired by this post on Amplitude – Perspectives.


    Book a consult png image
  • Teach AI to Think Like an Analyst: My Amplitude-Inspired Playbook for Faster Decisions

    Teach AI to Think Like an Analyst: My Amplitude-Inspired Playbook for Faster Decisions

    I’ve spent years trying to bottle the judgment of a great product analyst and pour it into our AI workflows. The hardest part isn’t access to data; it’s encoding the nuance of analytical reasoning. That’s why Amplitude’s approach resonated with me—turning expert analysis into a repeatable, stepwise process AI can run with discipline and speed.

    Learn how Amplitude turned its data analysis expertise into a structured, iterative process that AI can execute in moments.

    In practical terms, I translate that one line into an operating model: define the decision, formalize the metrics, map the data, decompose the questions, iterate on evidence, and converge on a recommendation with clear trade-offs. This is the backbone of agentic AI for product managers—giving an LLM not just data, but a procedure that mirrors how our best analysts think.

    Here’s the analyst-to-AI loop I use. First, frame the business question in decision language (what will we do differently?). Second, anchor on success metrics and guardrails, including statistical sensitivity and minimum detectable effect (MDE). Third, locate trusted sources—your unified analytics platform, experiment logs, and product instrumentation—so the AI never guesses. Fourth, generate hypotheses and segment the data (cohorts, channels, plans, geos), prioritizing signal over noise. Finally, synthesize findings into options with expected impact, risks, and next steps.

    To operationalize this, I build a retrieval-first pipeline that binds Amplitude analytics to structured prompts and function calls. The AI receives exact metric definitions, event taxonomies, and governance rules, then returns a predictable schema—headlines, evidence, segments, caveats, and recommended actions. That combination of clear constraints and consistent output makes eval-driven development possible: I can test prompts and tooling against a gold set of analyses and steadily improve quality.

    Consider retention analysis on a new onboarding flow. I’ll ask the system to pull activation rate, time-to-value, and day-7 retention from Amplitude, then compare cohorts by channel and plan. The AI proposes hypotheses (e.g., tooltip engagement correlates with activation), runs segmentation to validate them, and lays out product-led growth levers—like simplifying the first-run checklist or moving guidance in-app. What used to take hours of manual slicing now becomes an iterative loop that lets me spend more time on prioritization and less on tab wrangling.

    Of course, speed without rigor is a trap. I guard against metric drift and hallucinations with strong definitions, lineage checks, and human-in-the-loop approvals for consequential decisions. I also log analysis steps and outcomes so we can audit reasoning, catch regressions, and keep AI grounded in our true north metrics—not just what’s easy to compute.

    The big unlock isn’t a clever prompt; it’s codifying the analyst’s craft. When we treat analysis as a structured, iterative process, AI can execute it with consistency, and product teams can move faster with more confidence. If you’re building AI workflows for product insight, start by formalizing your analyst loop, connect it to your Amplitude analytics, and evaluate continuously. The result is smarter, faster decisions—and a repeatable path from raw data to action.


    Inspired by this post on Amplitude – Best Practices.


    Book a consult png image
  • 2026 Support Capacity Playbook: Bold AI Automation, Smarter Staffing, Zero‑Surprise SLAs

    Capacity planning has always been a high-stakes exercise in customer service, and when you miss, the signal shows up fast in backlogs and SLAs. I’ve lived that pressure across multiple cycles, and 2026 will reward teams that plan differently. AI fundamentally changes capacity planning because it changes the work. It resolves the bulk of your volume, speeds up execution, and elevates the complexity and value of what humans handle. The consequence is simple: planning models must evolve. This is the final installment in my 2026 customer service planning series, and I’m focusing on the tension every leader feels right now—be ambitious about automation, but avoid the trap of understaffing if your assumptions don’t hold. My goal is to share how AI changes the logic of capacity planning, what I’ve learned implementing these practices with my team and with customers, and the common traps to avoid. Traditional planning rests on relatively stable assumptions: volume grows predictably, work types stay consistent, handle times don’t swing dramatically, and productivity improves slowly with better tools and training. In an AI-first model, none of that is guaranteed, and the fundamentals flip. The mix of work changes as AI absorbs a growing share of simpler conversations, leaving humans with deeper, more time-consuming issues that demand human-to-human connection. Demand can actually increase when you remove friction, so AI can both resolve more and attract more volume. Human time splits differently as teammates solve customer problems and also review AI behavior, give feedback, improve content, and support system-level work. Performance becomes dynamic, not fixed—automation rate isn’t a one-time number; it can rise with care and fall with neglect. If you plan for 2026 using a pre-AI model—assuming similar productivity, similar work mix, and a linear relationship between volume and headcount—you will underestimate what it now takes to run a high-performing support organization. There are many metrics you can track, but the one to put at the center is automation rate (AI Agent involvement rate × AI Agent resolution rate). This single construct tells me what share of total volume AI actually resolves, how much work remains for humans, how much additional demand humans can absorb, and how ambitious I can be with headcount. Early in the journey, I prioritize raising involvement—getting the AI involved in more conversations. Once involvement is high, I shift to resolution on the hardest remaining work, where each additional 1% of automation can represent several people’s worth of capacity. In my 2026 plans, automation rate sits alongside projected inbound volume, average “output” per person for the more complex work that remains, and occupancy—how much time is allocated to customer-facing interactions versus operational and strategic work. Together, those inputs give a realistic picture of how many people you need and where they should spend their time. First, plan boldly on automation, but match it with investment. I do not cap automation assumptions at 40–50% “because AI is new.” Many teams are already modeling 60%, 70%, even 80%+ for 2026—when they invest in AI ownership and content. The investment is non-negotiable: named ownership for AI performance (AI ops, knowledge management, conversation design), clear automation targets by work type (e.g., informational vs. personalized vs. actions vs. deep troubleshooting), realistic expectations for what’s easy to automate and what’s not, and a concrete plan to raise automation over time in monthly or quarterly steps rather than a single jump. To decide where to invest first, I dig into the data. I start with the biggest volume drivers, separate content-led issues from those dependent on data or complex procedures, assume higher resolution potential for content-led topics once the knowledge base is in shape, and set more modest initial resolution expectations for system-dependent flows. Then I stair-step improvements as the systems, data contracts, and workflows mature. In short, bold automation goals only work when paired with the team structure, content, and systems required to reach them—and the discipline to iterate. Second, expect human “output” per person to go down. That’s a mindset shift. Historically, we assumed individual productivity would stay flat or tick up as tools improved. In an AI-first model, humans handle fewer conversations but more complex, cross-functional issues—and create more value despite lower case counts. I model a lower “cases closed per person” than prior-year baselines, explicitly assume the remaining work is more complex and time-consuming, and redefine productivity to include system-level work like AI Agent improvements, content updates, and policy or workflow change management. I also report “capacity created” from automation alongside human outputs, so leadership sees the full picture. Third, rethink occupancy: more time off the queues, on higher-value work. Traditional occupancy splits time between inbox and training, meetings, and breaks. Now there’s an expanding “out-of-inbox” portfolio that directly affects AI performance and overall capacity: reviewing AI-handled conversations, improving AI Agent triaging and handovers, contributing to content and procedures, feeding insights to product and engineering, and supporting system changes that reduce future volume. I set lower inbox occupancy targets than before and make the rationale explicit. People aren’t working less—they’re working differently. In planning, I assume more time spent on improvement and system work, make it visible (for example, X% in inbox and Y% on AI and system improvement), and treat this as critical, not a “nice to have.” If you don’t proactively allocate it, it won’t happen—and your automation and performance targets will suffer. Fourth, work with the finance team early, and treat your plan as a set of assumptions. Capacity planning with AI is a set of bets across automation rate, human output, demand growth, occupancy, and where surplus capacity (if any) goes. I bring finance in early, show that the plan is dynamic and directly tied to AI performance, and label every lever as an assumption with ranges. I commit to a quarterly review cadence with finance to compare assumptions versus reality and adjust headcount, targets, and investment as needed. The risks are real: if automation grows slower than expected and you stop backfilling too early, you’ll be understaffed for months. Hiring and onboarding take time, so course-correcting late creates strain. If you do produce surplus capacity, have a clear strategy to reallocate those teammates to higher-value work—improving systems, feeding insights back to product, supporting new channels, and driving proactive CX—rather than defaulting to reductions. I also set explicit guardrails—if automation rate misses by five points for two consecutive months, we pause planned reductions and revisit hiring gates. If it over-performs, we shift people into backlog eradication, content upgrades, or proactive outreach, so we bank compounding value. To set your team up for success in 2026, anchor your plan on automation rate, be honest that humans will handle fewer but harder conversations, and protect time for system improvements. Partner early and often with finance, avoid shrinking too fast, and design a plan for surplus capacity so you’re never caught flat-footed. If AI is going to handle the majority of your customer conversations, your plan has to be designed to help it do that well and to keep your team set up for meaningful, sustainable work. A 2026 plan built on adaptable assumptions—not fixed predictions—will hold up as your work, your systems, and your customers’ expectations continue to change. If you’d like future editions like this, subscribe and stay close—I’ll keep sharing what’s working, what isn’t, and how to tune your customer support AI strategy in real time.

    Inspired by this post on The Intercom Blog.


    Book a consult png image
  • AI in Product Design: My Proven Playbook, Real Use Cases, and the Tools That Win Faster

    AI in Product Design: My Proven Playbook, Real Use Cases, and the Tools That Win Faster

    In product design, AI has shifted from novelty to non-negotiable. I’ve watched teams accelerate discovery, compress prototyping cycles, and turn ambiguous ideas into validated experiences faster than ever—without sacrificing quality or customer trust.

    AI in product design has quickly moved from new to necessary. Here are the AI product design tools and approaches you need to stay relevant in this decade.

    From my vantage point leading product teams, “necessary” means AI is woven throughout the product lifecycle—discovery, prioritization, prototyping, validation, and iteration—not bolted on. The goal isn’t to chase hype; it’s to build durable advantage with clear AI Strategy, disciplined execution, and measurable outcomes.

    First, anchor the work in strategy. Tie every AI initiative to a specific customer problem and value proposition, then express that linkage with outcomes vs output OKRs. This keeps teams focused on real impact and avoids feature-chasing. It also sharpens product positioning and clarifies where AI can deliver competitive differentiation versus simple points of parity.

    Second, upgrade discovery. I rely on AI workflows to synthesize interviews, cluster themes, and surface insights at scale. A retrieval-first pipeline—grounding models in our own data—improves factuality and reduces hallucinations. Combine this with strong data governance and privacy-by-design so insights are trustworthy and compliant from day one.

    Third, make quality measurable. Adopt eval-driven development: define evaluation sets and acceptance thresholds that reflect real user tasks before you ship. Pair that with A/B testing and minimum detectable effect (MDE) discipline, so you learn quickly and confidently. Add safety guardrails (red-teaming prompts, content filters, and bias checks) to manage AI risk without slowing the pace.

    Fourth, enable empowered product teams. Product trios (PM, design, engineering) should co-create prompts, prototypes, and evaluation criteria. Give designers and PMs practical tools—LLMs for product managers, structured prompt templates, and reusable components—so AI-augmented work becomes the default, not a special project.

    Where does AI shine in product design today? Concept exploration and market scans, turning fuzzy opportunity spaces into crisp problem statements. Rapid wireframes and interaction ideas, using gen ai for product prototyping to explore multiple design directions in minutes. UX writing that adapts tone and reduces friction across onboarding, tooltip design, and microcopy.

    It also excels at guided experiences. I’ve seen strong lifts in user activation when we pair in-app guides and product tours with context-aware suggestions. For support and education use cases, a retrieval-grounded assistant can deflect tickets, shorten time-to-value, and reinforce the product’s value proposition at the exact moment a user needs help.

    Voice is another frontier. A well-scoped voice AI agent can accelerate complex workflows (think data entry or multi-step configurations) when hands-free is faster or more intuitive. Just be intentional about when agentic AI adds net value versus when a simple UI tweak would do.

    On the tooling side, my AI product toolbox is pragmatic and modular. For analytics and learning loops, Amplitude analytics and Pendo help quantify behavior changes and retention analysis. For in-product engagement and feedback routing, Intercom and HubSpot integrate cleanly with LLM-driven tagging and summarization. For ideation and automation, I use a ChatGPT connector and Claude Code for quick scripts, data wrangling, and prompt experiments. The constant: a retrieval-first pipeline that grounds models in approved knowledge and maintains context window management at scale.

    Risk management is built in, not bolted on. Set clear AI risk management policies, catalog model and data dependencies, and document decisions. Align with regulatory compliance requirements early, and keep an audit trail of prompts, datasets, and eval results. That’s how you move fast without breaking trust.

    If you’re getting started, begin small: pick one high-friction workflow, add a retrieval-grounded copilot, and measure the lift. Use the results to inform product roadmapping and sprint planning, then scale to adjacent use cases. With disciplined discovery, sharp evaluation, and the right tooling, AI becomes a force multiplier for product teams and a clear win for customers.


    Inspired by this post on Product School.


    Book a consult png image