whatkindof.dev

RAB

The Inspector

I move fast because the checks have my back.

writerreadershipperautonomytrustlevel
Take the quiz →See all types →

Who you are

You read code fast, but you don't read it alone. You read it through the dashboards, the traces, the test output. You move quick because the machinery has your back: if something's wrong, the checks will say so before you have to squint at it. You trust what you can measure more than what you can feel.

Where you shine

Verification at speed. You'd rather prove the code works than argue about it: property tests, type proofs, observability. Wire enough backpressure and you get to read the signal instead of the source — that's your instinct. When agents write the code and the tests, you're the one who knows verification beats testing, because the same process produced both.

Your blind spot

You can trust the number past the point it means anything. Goodhart's Law is the warning written for you: when a measure becomes a target, it stops being a good measure. Green coverage, a clean dashboard, a passing suite: each can be gamed, and the more you lean on the metric, the faster the metric drifts from the truth it was supposed to track. Tests check that code works, not that it was worth building.

In the AI age

This is your moment. Cheap, fast, agent-written code with strong verification is exactly how the work scales now. You read the observability layer, not ten thousand generated lines, and you move. The catch is the gamed metric: an agent will happily write code that passes your checks and misses your intent. Watch for the green that lies.

Your move

Pick one metric you've been trusting blind and ask what it would look like if someone optimised the number instead of the thing. Keep your speed; just keep one eye on the gap between the measure and the meaning.

How you're wired

Affinity. You love reading code.

Autonomy. You move fast and decisively.

Trust. You trust the machinery.

Your shadow

The type wired opposite to yours — every instinct flipped.

The Perfectionist WCJ compare →

“It compiles, but is it right?”

Developers who share your type

When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.
— Charles Goodhart

Your ideal AI workflow

Don't read the ten thousand generated lines — read the layer that watches them. Wire the property tests, the traces, the dashboards, and let the agent move fast underneath while you read the signal instead of the source. Your speed comes from trusting that machinery; just keep one eye on the gap between a green check and the intent it was supposed to prove, because the agent will pass the test and miss the point.

Who to pair with

Pair with the Judge — a RAJ supplies the taste your metrics can't measure, calling the wrong-shape code that lights every gauge green, while you prove the rest works at speed. The Captain (SAB) wires your verification into a fleet, judging outcomes you've already instrumented. You'll grind against the Perfectionist (WCJ) and the Navigator (SCJ), who slow down to plan and reread where you'd rather measure and move — they're the ones who'll catch when your favorite number has quietly stopped meaning anything, so trade them a metric to question for the speed you keep.

Where you'll struggle on a team

Because you trust what you can measure more than what you can feel, you ask people to prove things you could just take on faith. 'Show me the dashboard' lands as not trusting their word, and a teammate who knows the system cold gets treated like an unverified claim. The machinery you trust can quietly read as distrust of the people. Take the measurement on the calls that genuinely carry risk, and let a colleague's judgment count as a signal too.

What to stop doing

Wear it

what kind of dev: RABPut your type in your GitHub README:

[![what kind of dev: RAB](https://whatkindof.dev/badge/rab.svg)](https://whatkindof.dev/type/rab)
Take the quiz →