Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
Digestible, research-backed briefs on software, management, and the systems that shape performance—plus the occasional, clearly labeled detour.
Welcome to the Deep Dive. We cut through the noise to get you well informed on the topics really shaping our world. And today, we're digging into something that's changing the game for software development: context engineering. Now, if you're a software engineer listening to this, you've probably messed around with AI tools, maybe just what some folks call vibe coding. You throw some prompts at an AI, cross your fingers, and hope for the best, and hey, sometimes it works.
Speaker 1:It can be fast, kind of fun even. But, when you need to go beyond just messing around, when you need to build actual, reliable, production ready AI systems, well, that Vibe approach starts feeling a bit shaky, doesn't it? So the big question is how do you get that consistency, that reliability? How do you build AI features you can actually maintain? And that right there is where contest engineering steps in.
Speaker 1:So today, we're going to unpack exactly what it is, how it's likely going to change your day to day workflow as an engineer, and frankly, why it's becoming essential for building serious AI applications.
Speaker 2:Yeah. It's really fascinating because we're seeing this clear shift happening. We're moving away from, let's call it, the craft of prompt engineering, almost an art form, towards something much more structured, more systematic, systematic, a real engineering discipline. And our deep dive today, it's grounded in some solid research outlining context engineering as really the core discipline for building robust AI software. Think of it like this.
Speaker 2:You're essentially architecting the AI's working memory, making sure it has exactly what it needs when it needs it.
Speaker 1:Okay. Let's start right there then. Architecting the AI's memory. Right. What is context engineering fundamentally?
Speaker 1:Right. And how is it different from just, you know, writing really good prompts?
Speaker 2:Right. So the formal definition is something like, context engineering is the science and engineering of designing, assembling, and optimizing the entire information payload you give to an LLM when it's doing its thing during inference. The whole point is to maximize how well the model can understand, reason, and actually execute the task you give it. Andrzej Karpathy put it nicely, I think. He called it the delicate art and science of filling the context window with just the right information.
Speaker 1:Okay. Just the right information. That sounds key.
Speaker 2:Exactly. And, to make it maybe a bit more concrete, try this analogy. Think of the LLM, the language model, as a brand new kind of CPU. Right? The core processor.
Speaker 2:Now, if the LLM is CPU, it's context window, that limited space you feed information into that's like the system's RAM. Random access memory. It's super powerful RAM, but there's only so much of it.
Speaker 1:Okay. Limited RAM. I get that constraint.
Speaker 2:Right. So the context engineer. You're basically like the operating system designer in this picture. Your job is to manage that scarce RAM meticulously. You need to make sure the CPU gets exactly the relevant data for each step without, you know, drowning it in noise or leaving out something critical.
Speaker 1:That OS designer analogy helps a lot actually. But okay, if I'm someone who's mostly just been like tweaking prompts in ChatGPT or Copilot, how do I make the jump? What is moving towards context engineering actually look like for me?
Speaker 2:Yeah, that's a really important bridge to cross. The shift from just prompt engineering to context engineering is pretty fundamental. See prompt engineering, typically it's focused on crafting one single request. An atomic instruction, like summarize this article. You focus on making that one instruction super clear.
Speaker 1:Right. A single shot.
Speaker 2:Exactly. Context engineering though, it's about managing the whole information flow across potentially many interactions, especially for applications that need to remember things, you know, stateful, long running apps. Imagine building, say, a customer service bot. It needs to check account details, look up old support tickets, maybe consult product docs, and remember what you just talked about five minutes ago.
Speaker 1:Yeah, that's way beyond one prompt.
Speaker 2:Totally. That's a dynamic system managing information over time. So the key insight here really is that prompting isn't going away. It's not obsolete. It just gets subsumed.
Speaker 2:Your prompt becomes one critical piece inside a much larger carefully engineered information package that you deliver to the AI.
Speaker 1:Okay. An information package. I like that. So the prompt is just one ingredient. What else goes into this package?
Speaker 1:Can you sort of break down the anatomy of this context window for us?
Speaker 2:Absolutely. And it's crucial to understand it's not just a big jumble of text. A well engineered context is modular. It's structured. You assemble it from distinct pieces.
Speaker 1:Okay. Like building blocks.
Speaker 2:Precisely. First up, you've got your system instructions and prompts. These are the high level directives. You might tell the AI, act like a senior software engineer. Or give it specific rules like always respond in JSON format.
Speaker 2:Then of course, there's the immediate user input or query. That's the actual task or question the user just asked. Pretty straightforward.
Speaker 1:Got it. Instructions, user query. What else?
Speaker 2:Next, and this is super important for those stateful apps we mentioned, is memory. And this kinda comes in two flavors. There's short term memory, usually for the current session. Think recent conversation history so the AI knows what you were just talking about. Keeps things coherent.
Speaker 2:And then there's long term memory. This is stuff that persists across sessions, user preferences, past interactions, maybe project specific details, often stored in things like vector databases.
Speaker 1:So for me as an engineer, that long term memory could be like remembering my preferred coding style or project conventions.
Speaker 2:Exactly. Your AI assistant could remember your project's architecture patterns or custom linting rules, ensuring consistency when it helps you refactor code across different files, not just in the immediate interaction.
Speaker 1:Okay. That's powerful. What other blocks are there?
Speaker 2:Another really vital one is retrieved knowledge. This usually involves retrieval augmented generation, or RNG. This is how you pull in external info stuff that AI wasn't trained on. Think your company's internal Wiki, specific tech docs, real time data feeds. It grounds the LLM and facts relevant to your specific situation.
Speaker 2:We also include tool definitions and outputs, so descriptions of APIs the AI can call and maybe a code interpreter it can use, and critically, the actual results or observations that come back after the AI uses a tool.
Speaker 1:Right. So it knows what tools it has and what happened when it used them.
Speaker 2:Precisely. And finally, you often include structured data and schemas, things like JSON or XML data, or maybe a schema defining the exact output structure you want. This really helps constrain the model, makes the output more predictable, and cuts down on those, hallucinations or random outputs, plus things like real time data, maybe current stock prices, inventory levels, or even just today's date from an API. Understanding all these different components, how they fit together, that's really step one in building robust context driven systems. Systems.
Speaker 1:Okay. That breakdown is super helpful. We've painted this picture of sophisticated context engineering, but let's be real. A lot of us, myself included, started with something much looser. This idea of vibe coding.
Speaker 1:What exactly is vibe coding and why isn't it quite enough when things get serious?
Speaker 2:Yeah. Vibe coding is often the entry point. Right? It's that intuitive, conversational kind of trial and error way of working with an AI. Andrej Karpathy coined the term, I think, early twenty twenty five.
Speaker 2:You're basically guiding the AI assistant using natural language, kinda like, code this first. We'll figure out the details later.
Speaker 1:Sounds familiar.
Speaker 2:Right. And it's great for certain things. Fantastic for just exploring ideas quickly, whipping up prototypes, maybe those weekend hackathon projects, or even just learning a new language or framework, it's super accessible. But when you try to take that approach into building production software, the cracks start to show. Because it's so unstructured, it often leads the AI to generate incorrect code, inaccurate stuff, sometimes just plain wrong, hallucinations basically.
Speaker 2:The code quality tends to be low, inconsistent. It's a nightmare to debug and maintain later on. And honestly, it can even introduce security vulnerabilities if you're not careful. For professional development where reliability and maintainability are key, that unpredictable nature just doesn't cut it.
Speaker 1:Okay. So vibe coding for exploration, context engineering for That makes sense. So for listeners thinking about making that transition, how does that evolution actually play out? How do you move from one to the other?
Speaker 2:Well, you can think of it as a clear progression, a maturity curve really in terms of control and reliability, Vibe coding, that's all intuition, speed, getting something running fast. Context engineering, that's about deliberate system architecture, designing the information flow. In vibe coding, your main thing is the conversational prompt. In context engineering, it's a dynamic context pipeline actual code that assembles the right information package.
Speaker 1:So my role changes too.
Speaker 2:Definitely. You shift from being maybe a creative director, guiding the AI to being a system architect, designing how the AI integrates with information. And the bottom line is scalability and reliability. Vibe coding scores low there. A context engineering is designed for high scalability and reliability.
Speaker 2:It's the only one really geared towards building maintainable production grade software systems.
Speaker 1:So it's less about ditching Vibe coding entirely and more about knowing when to use which approach, like different tools for different jobs?
Speaker 2:Precisely. It's absolutely not an eitheror. Many projects naturally start with fuzzy requirements. Vibe coding is perfect there. Rapid prototyping, exploring the solution space.
Speaker 2:But once that project shows promise, once it starts heading towards production, you have to transition. That unstructured approach needs to give way to the deliberate, structured methods of context engineering. Sometimes people talk about vibe engineering as that transition point. You keep the AI's generative power, but you start embedding it within more structure.
Speaker 1:Could you give an example of that transition, vibe coding to vibe engineering?
Speaker 2:Sure. So instead of a super vague vibe prompt like, Hey, AI, write me a billing function.
Speaker 1:Yeah. Good luck with that one.
Speaker 2:Right. You move to something more specific, more structured like, Okay, AI, extend the existing process invoice function to handle usage based tiers. Make sure you use the format currency function from our utils module. Oh, and apply the access control logic defined in subscriptions.ts.
Speaker 1:Okay. Much more specific. Still using natural language, but pointing it at concrete code and requirements.
Speaker 2:Exactly. That's Vibe Engineering. And then the final step, in a full context engineering system, those references like process invoice or format currency, you wouldn't even type them manually. The system would automatically retrieve that information, the function definition, its location, maybe related documentation from your code base or a tool registry or a knowledge base, and feed it into the context. That's the ultimate goal.
Speaker 2:Automated, accurate context assembly.
Speaker 1:That makes total sense. Yeah. So we understand what it is, why it's important. Now how do we actually do it? This sounds like more than just prompt tuning.
Speaker 1:What's the workflow look like?
Speaker 2:You're right. It's definitely a different workflow. And it's not linear like traditional coding sometimes feels. It's much more cyclical, iterative, and everything revolves around context. We can generally break it down into a practical three phase process.
Speaker 2:It's about continuous improvement.
Speaker 1:It's okay. Phase one.
Speaker 2:Phase one, context design and architecture. Think of this as the sharpening the axe phase. It's all preparation, but it's critical. First, goal definition and evaluation first. Before you build anything, define what success means.
Speaker 2:What are your KPIs, your metrics, your benchmarks? This shifts development from guesswork to something data driven. Then problem decomposition. Break down the big complex task into smaller manageable sub problems. Like, if the AI needs to write a research report, you might break it down into one, make a plan.
Speaker 2:Two, run some searches. Three, synthesize the findings. Four, draft the report. That becomes your blueprint.
Speaker 1:Like building a plan for the AI.
Speaker 2:Exactly. Then comes context inventory. You need to audit everything the AI might need access to. Your code base, internal Wikis, APIs, maybe web search results. Figure out what information sources are available, and just as importantly, what's missing.
Speaker 2:And finally, architecture planning. This is where you design the high level flow. Is it one AI agent doing everything? Or maybe a team of specialized agents? How will you handle retrieval augmented generation REG?
Speaker 2:This planning phase sets you up for success.
Speaker 1:Okay, design first, sharpen the axe, makes sense. Once that blueprint is ready, how do we actually build these systems that manage the context dynamically? What happens in phase two?
Speaker 2:Right. That takes us to phase two. Context implementation and orchestration. This is where the rubber meets the road, the core technical work. You're building the systems that actually manage the context flow at run time.
Speaker 2:And there are generally four key strategies or families of techniques you'll use here.
Speaker 1:Four strategies. Okay, what's the first one?
Speaker 2:Strategy one is writing context. This is all about creating memory for the AI, saving important information outside the LLM's limited temporary context window so it can be recalled later. Techniques here include using scratch pads temporary holding places for the AI's intermediate thoughts, especially from a false step reasoning problems, And building more persistent memory systems, maybe using vector stores to keep track of user preferences or long conversation histories across sessions.
Speaker 1:Like our earlier example of remembering project conventions.
Speaker 2:Exactly. Or imagine a financial analysis agent noting down key risk factors from a long loan application document into its persistent memory so it can refer back to them throughout the analysis process.
Speaker 1:Okay, writing context for memory. What's Strategy two?
Speaker 2:Strategy two is selecting context. This is about dynamic retrieval, pulling only the most relevant bits of information into the context window precisely when needed and avoiding unnecessary noise. The key technique here is advanced rag. We're talking beyond simple keyword search. Things like rewriting the user's query to be more effective for retrieval, using hybrid search, combining keyword and semantic search, and re ranking the search results to put the best stuff at the top.
Speaker 2:It also includes tool selection. Instead of giving the AI a massive list of tools it could use, use semantic search on the tool descriptions to select and provide only the few tools that are actually relevant to the user's current request.
Speaker 1:So trimming the fat, essentially, like that customer support bot example only pulling recent tickets.
Speaker 2:Precisely. Yeah. Don't overwhelm the context window. Alright. Strategy three is compressing context.
Speaker 2:This directly addresses the limited size of the context window, that RAM analogy again. You need ways to reduce the number of tokens you're using out losing the essential meaning. Techniques include summarization, maybe using a smaller, faster LLM to create a concise summary of a long document before feeding it to the main LLM. Also, simple trimming or pruning, like removing the oldest messages from a long chat history, and structured extraction, where you pull out key entities or information from unstructured text and put it into a compact format like JSON.
Speaker 1:So summarizing a long article before asking the AI to use it.
Speaker 2:Exactly. Makes the information much more digestible for the LLM within its token limit. And finally, strategy four is isolating context. This is about separation of concerns, improving focus and managing complexity by splitting the context into different isolated spaces. One way is through multi agent systems.
Speaker 2:You break down a complex task and assign different parts specialized agents, each with its own optimized context tailored just for its subtask. Another technique is using sandbox environments, especially for things like code execution. Run the code in a secure sandbox and only pass back the essential result, like the output or an error message, to the LLM, not all the verbose execution logs. Keeps the main context clean.
Speaker 1:Wow. Okay. Right. Select, compress, isolate. Those four strategies give a really clear picture of the technical work involved.
Speaker 1:But you said it's a cycle, so it's not just build and deploy. Right? What happens next?
Speaker 2:You got it. It's definitely not build and forget. That brings us to the crucial phase three, evaluation, refinement, and monitoring. Context engineering is fundamentally an iterative process driven by continuous rigorous evaluation. You start with context validation.
Speaker 2:This means systematically testing your context pipelines. Throw different inputs at them, test edge cases. Are you actually assembling the right information package each time? Then comes outcome evaluation. You need to assess the actual output of the AI system against those metrics you defined back in phase one.
Speaker 2:This might involve automated checks, maybe writing heuristic functions to score the output, or sometimes human review for more complex tasks.
Speaker 1:And if the outcomes aren't good.
Speaker 2:That's where context refinement comes in. You analyze the failures. Why did it go wrong? Was the retrieved information irrelevant? Was the system prompt ambiguous?
Speaker 2:Did it pick the wrong tool? You trace the failure back to its root cause in the context pipeline and make targeted improvements. Maybe you need better arrag or a clearer instruction or a refined tool description. And all of this is underpinned by monitoring and observability. You need to be constantly tracking key metrics in production.
Speaker 2:Things like token usage, which translates to cost, API latency, task success rates. This real time data helps you spot problems early, detect performance degradation, and informs your ongoing refinement efforts. It's a continuous loop.
Speaker 1:Design, implement, evaluate, refine, and keep monitoring. That definitely sounds like an engineering discipline. Okay. This is a lot to manage manually. What kind of tools are emerging to actually help software engineers do all this in practice?
Speaker 2:That's a great question because the tooling ecosystem is evolving incredibly fast to support this. We're seeing layers of specialized tools emerge. For instance, right within the development environment, you have things like Cursor. It's built as an AI native IDE, and it's designed specifically to make context engineering part of your natural coding flow. It goes way beyond just basic code completion.
Speaker 1:How so? What does it do differently?
Speaker 2:Well, it allows for what you might call surgical context injection. You can use simple at mentions, like at file or at folder or even at symbol, to very precisely tell the AI which specific parts of your code base are relevant for the task at hand. It's incredibly granular control.
Speaker 1:So I can point it directly at the relevant code?
Speaker 2:Exactly. It also supports persistent context through project specific rules files. You can define things like coding style guides or testing requirements that get automatically included in the context for every AI interaction in that project. It even has modes where it can try to autonomously search your code base to pull in relevant context. Plus, it's starting to handle multimodal context you can include images, add images, or pull in real time web info at web.
Speaker 2:And there's this emerging open standard called the model context protocol, MCP. Think of it like a USB C port for AI context, allowing Cursor potentially to plug into external systems like Figma for design specs or maybe your logging platform for real time error data.
Speaker 1:Okay. So Cursor helps manage context right in the EIDE. What about building those complex pipelines we talked about?
Speaker 2:Right. For that orchestration piece, have frameworks like LangChain and particularly its evolution, LangGraph. These provide the building blocks for creating this complex, stateful AI workflows. You can define your application logic as a stateful graph, controlling exactly how information flows between LLM calls, tool executions, data retrieval steps, and transformations. It gives you that explicit control over the orchestration.
Speaker 1:And you mentioned another one, DSPY.
Speaker 2:Yes, DSPY. This one takes a slightly different, maybe higher level approach. It's often summarized by the mantra programming, not prompting. With DSPY, you focus on defining the desired behavior, the input output signature you want for a particular step in your pipeline. You define the what, not the how.
Speaker 2:Then DSPY's optimizers, they call teleprompters, automatically experiment under the hood. They try different prompt phrasings, different few shot examples, maybe even tweak model parameters or suggest fine tuning to find the optimal configuration that achieves the behavior you defined.
Speaker 1:So it automates a lot of that tedious prompt tweaking and refinement.
Speaker 2:Exactly. It aims to automate much of that iterative refinement loop we discussed in phase three. So you often see developers using these tools together, Landgraf for the overall orchestration and DSPY for optimizing specific modules within that graph.
Speaker 1:That's a powerful toolkit emerging. But let's connect it back to the real world. How is all this actually delivering measurable business value? Can you share some examples of context engineering making a difference?
Speaker 2:Absolutely. And when you look at the impact, the value becomes really clear. Take finance, for instance. We've seen reports of a fintech firm boosting the accuracy of its AI driven financial advice by 30%, specifically by using Arbet to feed it real time market data and the client's actual portfolio details. Wealth management firms using context rich AI have cut meeting prep time by something like 40%.
Speaker 1:Wow, thirty-forty percent improvements are significant.
Speaker 2:They really are. In healthcare, think about diagnosis. Giving an AI comprehensive context, the patient's full medical history, recent lab results, current vital signs, has demonstrably reduced misdiagnosis rates in certain studies. That heart rate example is perfect. 160 bpm means something totally different if the patient context is currently running versus currently sleeping.
Speaker 2:Context is paramount. In the legal tech space, a company like Everlaw use advanced rag and context techniques to achieve 87% accuracy in finding relevant answers within a massive data set of complex legal documents. That's a game changer for legal discovery.
Speaker 1:Huge time savings there, I imagine.
Speaker 2:Massive. And think about ecommerce and customer support. Recommendation engines get way better when they have rich context, your browsing history. What's actually in stock right now, maybe even trends, and customer support bots. When they have access to your order history, past support interactions, product manuals, we're seeing reductions in ticket handling time by up to 40%.
Speaker 2:The pattern is consistent. The most impactful, highest value AI applications are the ones deeply integrated with relevant, high quality, timely, contextual data. That's where context engineering shines.
Speaker 1:That makes the value proposition really clear. But, like any powerful no approach, there must be pitfalls, right? What are some common mistakes or anti pattern software engineers should watch out for when they start implementing context engineering?
Speaker 2:Oh absolutely. It's easy to stumble. We see issues both at the level of how the model handles context and at the broader system or organizational level. At the model level, there are these common failure modes, sometimes called the four Cs. First is context poisoning.
Speaker 2:Just one piece of really wrong or misleading information slipped into the context can completely derail the AI's reasoning. It poisons the well.
Speaker 1:So garbage in, garbage out, amplified.
Speaker 2:Exactly. Then there's context distraction. This is that lost in the middle problem you sometimes hear about. If the context window is too long or cluttered, the LLM can literally forget the original instruction or lose track of key information buried in the middle. Third is context confusion.
Speaker 2:If you provide too much information, especially if it's only loosely relevant or if you give it descriptions for too many tools that do similar things, the model can just get confused about what to focus on or which tool to use. And the fourth context clash. This happens when you accidentally feed the model contradictory information within the same context payload. It doesn't know which piece to trust leading to unreliable or nonsensical output.
Speaker 1:Okay. Poisoning, distraction, confusion, clash. Got it. What about the bigger picture system level mistakes?
Speaker 2:Yeah. Beyond how the model itself behaves, there are common system and organizational anti patterns. A big one is the data dump fallacy. Just assuming that throwing more data into the context is always better. Often, it just adds noise, increases cost, and makes things worse, not better.
Speaker 2:Selection and relevance are key. Then there's the silo trap. This is where different teams or departments build their own isolated context systems or knowledge bases. You lose the huge potential benefit of shared integrated organizational knowledge. Another mistake is the static context mistake.
Speaker 2:Designing your context sources and pipelines once and then just leaving them. Context is dynamic, your code base changes, documentation gets updated, business needs evolve, context engineering requires ongoing maintenance and refinement just like any other software system.
Speaker 1:Treat it like a living asset, not a one off setup.
Speaker 2:Precisely. And finally, the classic software pitfalls still apply poorly defined requirements and inadequate testing. If you don't clearly define what the AI needs to do and rigorously test your context pipelines, you're setting yourself up for failure. Same as always.
Speaker 1:That's a really useful list of warnings. Yeah. But it also brings up a tricky point you touched on earlier. How do we actually measure if doing all this careful context engineering is making us, as engineers, more productive? Mhmm.
Speaker 1:There seems to be this productivity paradox with AI tools.
Speaker 2:It's a massive challenge, honestly. And the data is sometimes contradictory. You see surveys where developers feel way more productive reporting huge speed increases, two x faster, 57% faster, whatever. They feel happier. But then you see other more controlled studies like randomized trials, where experienced developers working on complex tasks were actually measured to be slower, maybe 19% slower when using AI assistance, even though they perceive themselves as being 20% faster.
Speaker 1:Wow. So our feeling doesn't always match reality.
Speaker 2:Exactly. And simple metrics like lines of code generated are almost useless. They tell you nothing about the quality, the complexity, or the maintainability of that code. So we really need a more holistic way to measure the impact. A framework that combines different types of metrics.
Speaker 1:Like what? What should be in that framework?
Speaker 2:Well, you'd want to include standard delivery performance metrics, things like the DORA metrics. Are we deploying more frequently? Is our change failure rate improving? Is lead time decreasing? Does context engineering impact these system level outcomes?
Speaker 2:You also need to look at workflow efficiency. Are we actually reducing bottlenecks in the dev process Is less time spent on boilerplate or searching for information? Critically, you have to measure code and system quality. Is this AI assisted speed coming at the cost of more bugs downstream? Is the resulting code harder to maintain or understand?
Speaker 2:We need quality metrics alongside speed metrics. Then there's AI adoption and usage. How deeply are these context aware AI tools actually being integrated into the daily workflow? Are people using them effectively? And finally, don't discount qualitative side developer experience.
Speaker 2:Are engineers feeling less frustrated, more engaged? Are they experiencing more flow state? That subjective feeling of productivity, while not the whole picture, is still a really important factor. You need that mix of quantitative and qualitative measure.
Speaker 1:That makes sense. A balanced scorecard approach. So looking ahead then, what's the future hold for context engineering? Is what we've described today the final destination or is this just another step on the journey?
Speaker 2:Oh, I definitely think it's transitional phase. What we're doing now with manual context curation and pipeline building, while powerful, probably isn't the long term end game. It just doesn't scale effectively enough. The future likely points towards two big interconnected ideas: automated workflow architecture and context as a platform.
Speaker 1:Okay. Unpack those. Automated workflow architecture.
Speaker 2:Yeah. The idea is that the engineer's role shifts again. Instead of being the person manually curating the context or building every pipeline by hand, you become more like a context compiler designer. You'll be building systems that can automatically inspect data sources like introspecting live databases to generate up to date schemas or analyzing code based changes and then automatically assemble and deliver the precisely scoped context the LLM needs for a given task on demand. More automation, less manual assembly.
Speaker 1:And context as a platform.
Speaker 2:This is the grander vision, really. Imagine an enterprise wide, continuously updated, machine readable representation of your entire organization's collective knowledge, a kind of shared cognitive substrate. It would integrate with all your key systems, GitHub, Slack, Jira, Salesforce, databases, everything. Specialized context agents would constantly work behind the scenes synthesizing raw data from these sources into this unified knowledge layer. And then this rich unified context would be available via APIs to any agent human or AI that needs it to perform a task.
Speaker 1:Give me an example of that in action.
Speaker 2:Okay. Imagine a DevOps AI agent. To diagnose a deployment issue, it could seamlessly pull and reason across context from your Terraform infrastructure card, related GitHub issues and pull requests, and real time monitoring data from Datadog, all accessed through this unified context platform. That allows for much deeper cross domain reasoning. The biggest hurdle here, honestly, is probably organizational, not just technical.
Speaker 2:It requires breaking down those data silos we talked about, solving that pervasive context crisis where institutional knowledge is scattered, locked away, or just played out of date.
Speaker 1:So it sounds like my role as a software engineer keeps evolving. Less about just banging out application code and more towards being AI workflow architect or maybe a context platform engineer.
Speaker 2:I think that's exactly right. The focus shifts towards designing, building, and maintaining these intelligent systems and the information flows that power them.
Speaker 1:Well, this deep dive has certainly made it clear. Context engineering isn't just a fancy term for better prompting. It's really a formal, systematic engineering discipline, and it seems absolutely essential if you want to build reliable, production grade AI applications.
Speaker 2:Yeah, it's all about moving from that intuitive, sometimes chaotic vibe towards a robust, engineered system. It's about using structured workflows, leveraging these powerful new tools like Cursor, LangChain, DSPY to actually deliver that measurable real world impact we see across different industries.
Speaker 1:And while, okay, there are definitely still challenges figuring out how to truly measure productivity, avoiding those pitfalls like context poisoning or data dumps, the direction seems pretty clear. The future of building with AI looks like it's heading straight towards more automated context management and these enterprise wide context platforms. So maybe here's a final thought for you, the software engineer listening: If the success of this next wave of AI hinges less on the raw models themselves and more on how well we engineer the context we provide them, what kinds of new problems maybe problems you thought were unsolvable before could you start tackling once you master this skill? And how might that fundamentally reshape your whole approach to building software? Something to think about.
Speaker 1:This concludes our deep dive into context engineering.