Building the surfaces

I am not a software programmer. At the start, I had never installed the tools developers use to make a website theme or an app. But I wanted to learn and build something new to me while using AI in more productive ways.

Initially, I took the easiest path that folks who want their personal website would take. Either you can go with the default theme the website provider offers or buy a custom theme that comes with a few design choices that change the website’s look. These choices are more like toggles or text edits, so you can decide on visibility but you can’t truly bring new features. Being perfectly reasonable with my time, I learnt how to customise a custom theme and by the end of it, the theme carried about 1,900 documented lines of my changes across 19 of its files: 11 collection pages with their own address patterns, custom channel routes, a hand-built tags directory, overridden scripts. As with any purchased custom theme, such changes built on top of the base custom theme survive exactly one version upgrade, but I made it survive for me only because I had logged every change. The upgrade was a four-way comparison of the old vanilla theme, the new vanilla theme, my modified copy, and the changelog. It still surfaced 7 modifications that hadn't been written down. Custom styling had gone inline into templates because editing the source did nothing. Misbehaving vendor scripts could not be fixed; I raced them with a listener that disarmed them before they fired. I knew this catch-up could be sustained through other means but each instance of catch-up was still inefficient. Also, why accept the inadequacies of my design when I can just camouflage my alarm by being proud of the circus of chaos?

Ultimately, I wanted my writing to live naturally on whatever surface a reader is holding: the web, an iPhone, an Android phone. I did not want one experience stretched across three screens. I wanted three surfaces, each built to its own platform’s recommendations and strengths, but all fed by one source. It seemed to me that this only works if I build the source and the structure the surfaces depend on. A vendor’s theme owns the structure and leaves me the patches. But a theme of my own makes the website a base other things can stand on, and a base lets the benefits stack. Any feature the site gains, I can build them from the start itself such that the apps can inherit either the functionality or the intended benefit in another form, and any rule the site enforces, the apps can rely on.

I also learn best by doing something I cannot yet do, and self-confidence built that way feels more ... confident. I had never built any of the three surfaces or used any of the AI tools towards that purpose in such completely unknown environments that require a certain discipline, so I would have to direct work I could not do myself.

What have been the results: a website theme of my own; a native iOS reader on the App Store; a native Android reader built and being tested. Across the three: 1,000+ commits, 130+ verified merges, 125+ tracked issues, about 53,000 lines of code, 16 written-up failure stories, and a ledger of 330+ recorded moments where the AI was wrong, spun, drifted or wasted my money. None of it came out of one prompt (even when most of my prompts were detailed and not conflicting); most features took several tries and some required experimenting with multiple versions or changing things for alignment. All this to say, it’s not one-shot vibe-coded.

Taking the path of least resistance was never the goal. For example - If I had wanted a shortcut, I could have stopped after building a standard theme across any of the three platforms with a basic light/dark toggle. But that wouldn’t have taught me how to decide between options when in an alien environment and besides, the site would have looked like most other websites.

Instead, I made deliberate choices that introduced complexity because I wanted to see how interdependencies are untangled and how benefits can be automated and compounded in messy environments. The impression of an incomplete build in some places doesn’t concern me too much as the work-in-progress is still entirely mine.

The real value of an exercise like this lies in the friction and in constantly seeing how systems thinking translates back to your own craft and core interests.

This post ran long because I wanted to be transparent about the reality of building your own digital spaces from near-scratch. It’s simply to show that building your own platforms isn’t as frictionless as it’s made out to be, especially for the general public. Despite the relentless hype suggesting AI has made this effortless for everyone, it is still challenging work when you are starting outside your depth. AI is undeniably helpful, but the surrounding noise often glosses over the actual technique and grind.

I’m satisfied that my main initial goal of getting these surfaces up and running is achieved, but I’m also clear-eyed about the rough edges and what I need to simplify and change, not just in the product but also in my process. To me, there are obvious things in both the site and the apps that need to be refined or even overhauled. But like any system, it will evolve with iteration.

Again, improvements through experiences compound over time, and there is a lot of merit in committing to building something for yourself and walking away with something functional, even if it’s unpolished. Pushing through the learning curve to build something real carries its own kind of value.

How to read this article

1. Throughout this article, there are pockets/tables marked as
   - ‘Tech · ’ containing numbers for readers who want some details
   - ‘Reasoning · ’ containing a summary of decisions laid out plainly
2. To jump to a specific section,
   - use the floating table of contents at the top if you are on the desktop
   - use the floating table of contents icon in the iOS and Android apps

Layer 1: the website as the base

To buy or to double-buy, that is the question

Reasoning · The build-versus-buy call

Three costs showed up in the record of the commercial theme, and they recur rather than happen once:

• Every upgrade is also a re-customisation. When you update, you migrate in a way. When you are building features and need to update, you have to do a comparison and document the connections and changes. Without a file-by-file log, each upgrade would become increasingly problematic.
• Every fix goes around the theme. Inline styling to bypass the vendor build. Listeners racing vendor scripts. Each clever fix is likely a thing the next upgrade could silently break.
• The ceiling is real. If the theme’s structure does not offer a feature, chances are that a new feature you introduce can cause conflicts or be incompatible with current structure.

For anyone who wants to publish and never touch structure, buying a theme is right. The rebuild become right only when the customisation volume prove the theme’s constraints are the bottleneck.

Why did I buy the custom theme? Because I could explore and customise the custom theme. The initial intent was not to build my own. But it soon became clear that rebuilding the website from a blank state was the best way forward.

The rebuild started from Ghost Source, the open reference theme Ghost’s own team maintains. Phase 1 of the plan, existed purely to reach feature parity. Days of work whose entire output was "the site does what it did before, on the Source foundation."

What custom-built means, counted

Tech · The theme in numbers

The structure runs on one rule. Everything published flows into 3 channels and 15 sections plus a standalone travel area, and placement is decided by the first real tag on a post. Posts that fit no named section group under a General tab for their channel. Most of that structure is deliberately invisible right now: when the site went public I removed the unlaunched sections from routing, and each one switches on later by a written launch procedure.

Ghost’s editor is deliberately minimal and its stock answer to anything beyond the basics seemed to be that you cannot, or you inject third-party code. I wanted neither, so the theme adds few reading features:

• tooltips with plain text or with GIFs or with both,
• footnotes,
• image-on-word-click,
• a table of contents built from headings,
• tables that fit the page,
• media toggles

To make it easier for users to zip around long-form content such as this article, I built the table of contents in the breadcrumbs bar at the top. To jump to other articles, I built a list of the posts in the active section as well. The reason being that I wanted to navigate to different sections of the article or to other articles with one click.

A related-posts engine replaced Ghost’s built-in "read more" block, which was showing the 4 newest posts regardless of topic. Mine scores candidates by rare shared tags and needs no external service.

Four complete visual identities hang off one set of templates. Hovering a skin in the switcher previews it live across the whole page; a click commits. A fifth combination, Glass in light mode, was built, reviewed across 6 renders of 3 directions on real saved pages, and shelved because I could not see the point of spending more time on figuring out the design in light mode because frosted glass requires more changes than I had the time for. It’s still something I want to do in the future once I map out the design in a more scalable way by simplifying the colour scheme.

The site as an API

Reasoning · Why the website had to be built first

The apps hold no content of their own. Everything they show is fetched from the site through an API, a read-only feed of posts, pages, tags, metadata and such data. That is how it works mechanically. Beyond that, I shaped the site so I could shape the taxonomy and the interface of the two apps. The benefit is a list of things I can change in the apps without shipping an app release.

Tech · What the apps take from the site

Making two AIs work off each other

The custom website theme was built through two AI systems working in one repository: Claude Code inside VS Code, and Gemini inside Google’s Antigravity. They had no shared chat, only shared files. So, I had to design the loop between them after the first week showed me what happened without one. The reason was to obviously learn how to work on the same project with different AI in different IDEs but also to sidestep the usage limits I was hitting on Claude Pro $20 plans. Not much point upgrading to Max or switching to APIs when the usage is just hovering ~10% above the limits.

Tech · The cross-review loop

• 7 audit files in the archive record the two AIs auditing the old site and then reviewing each other’s reconciliation. Stopping rule written into the record: after 2 cross-reviews, no further rounds, I had to answer emerging decision questions.
• Every Antigravity task got a pre-flight review by Claude before build and a gate review after. Gemini Flash in Antigravity was really fast at executing tactical pieces of work. Claude Opus was better at ensuring Gemini met the goal by mostly following the directions and then it stitched up the documentation. Also, Gemini and Claude differed in what they looked at. So, two pair of eyes seemed better to me. For example: a pre-flight review targeted structures and filenames from the commercial theme that do not exist in Source. It was RETURNed with 4 must-fix and 6 recommended items before approval on round 2.
• One commit in the history is a RETURN verdict naming 2 defects. A gate that said "no rebuild needed" shipped a stale built stylesheet, so the new font rendered on 2 logo elements and nowhere else; the standing principles gained a rule that freshness is proven by grepping the built file, not by timestamp.
• Two AIs running git in one working directory swapped each other’s HEAD mid-session. Rule since then: one tool touches the working tree at a time, and Antigravity runs no git operations at all.
• Antigravity’s sidebar task added about 100 !important declarations against the written principle. Accepted as localised debt, in writing, rather than hidden.
• The reading-enrichment feature’s first pass cost about 1.1 million tokens because review packages bundled minified build output and source maps (about 1.9 MB per reviewer) and every task ran an implement-review-fix-review loop on a mostly verbatim port. Result: 13 unmerged commits and 6 issues I found on the live site. The fresh session was told not to re-investigate, to fix in context, and to exclude map files from every review diff.

Reasoning · What the loop bought

Neither AI was reliable enough to leave alone. Each caught things the other missed: Claude caught Antigravity building against a theme that no longer existed; Antigravity’s diagnosis found the cause of a tint bug Claude had chased for 3 sessions with 2 different delivery mechanisms. It cost review rounds and tokens. In return, defects were caught before the live site, and the record keeps the rejected option next to the chosen one.

Numbers · Building the website, by the numbers

• 360+ commits,
• 55+ verified merges,
• 6.6 commits per merge,
• largest day 41 commits
• 14 GitHub issues (8 closed, 6 open)
• 105+ commits touched documentation only (29 percent of all commits), against 56 feature and 50 fix commits.
• About 150 numbered decisions across about 30 lettered series.
• 150+ Markdown files in the repository, about 261,000 words across 26,000+ lines; the docs folder alone is 135 files, 24,500+ lines. Documentation to code ratio about 1.7 to 1. 5 branches, 1 checkpoint tag. 30 commits mention a revert, rollback, reset or removal (8.2 percent). 15 commits in 9 abandoned chains are unreachable from any branch. Median commit: 3 files, 40+ lines added.

Boring! Documentation is extensive but remember, I was working in programming languages without knowing it and I was spotting few instances of both the AIs blindly running past regression mistakes. Noticing these things while being on Opus and Gemini Pro didn’t help my confidence too. But takeaway from all this is that I now know how to avoid this classic case of heavy documentation.

Layer 2: iOS, the first app on the base

Rebuild or wrap

There is a shortcut for turning a website into an app: put the site in a plain window with no address bar and ship it. It is fast and it technically works. I wanted the features on the website to exist on the phone as features, so the app is a translator. It asks the site for the raw content of each article and rebuilds it from the phone’s own native building blocks. That is why it can control typography, store rebuilt articles on the device, open instantly with no connection, and return you to the paragraph you left.

The price is that the app had to be taught every kind of content my writing contains. About 20 distinct content types, each a small feature of its own. The reading engine and the reading screen together are over 5,000 lines, roughly a third of the app, concentrated in 2 files. I was told by all AIs that a wrapped website for an app would have needed almost none of it.

Reasoning · The rule for the unknown

Rebuilding content by hand meant accepting that I could not support everything on day one, and that the site will mostly outlive any version of the app. So one rule was written before the first content type was built: anything the app does not recognise renders as a small "coming soon" note, never a crash or a blank. That rule let me ship the reader in stages, one content type at a time. I set the fallback first and built features behind it, the same way I phased the website.

What the iOS app does, counted

Tech · The iOS app in numbers

Home is a curated start: a hero card, a one-line status (both controlled from the website), a Continue Reading deck, recent posts, a books shelf with reading-status filters, and one older post per day from the archive.

Browse mirrors the website’s structure.

Search covers the whole site offline once it has built its index, and tapping a match opens the article scrolled to that paragraph.

Quote sharing splits a long-pressed paragraph into sentences; you can customise the look and see the changes in the card preview. Admittedly, a bit of a narcissistic feature.

The system around the AI

The app was built with Claude Code running inside Xcode. The AI practically doesn’t have a reliable usable memory between sessions: the assistant that spent an afternoon learning why a screen freezes or why you took certain decisions to avoid side-effects wakes up next time to confidently ignore or revert those having no context of the reasons. I had no expertise to fall back on, so I built a rudimentary structure to control context, with few of them added after things went wrong.

Tech · The working structures, measured at launch

Having a sign-off that triggers multiple steps is the load-bearing wall. Verify the build, fold the work in, verify again, publish, delete the draft, close the ticket with a summary, update related tickets, update memory and logs, judge whether the architecture and status documents need changes. The structures get maintained because it is mentioned as a step in that sequence. I never had to remember to document; a session was not finished until those steps ran.

Reasoning · The rules were scars

None of the 22 rules came from a book. Remember that I couldn’t know enough to have principles in advance. A few, with what caused them:

• Never let scrolling information feed back into layout. A screen locked up because a visual effect tied to scrolling resized content, which nudged the scroll, which triggered the effect. The fix became law, and the shorthand for "I checked this cannot re-trigger the freeze" appears 24 times across the records. The freeze never returned.
• Stop after a fixed number of attempts and write the failure down. YouTube playback inside articles was tried 4 different ways; every one hit the same wall. The app now shows a reliable preview that opens the video in a popup browser. A portrait-image container bug took 5 failed fixes before the approach changed. Syntax highlighting for code blocks was evaluated 3 ways and declined 3 times, with the reasons dated.
• Do only what was asked. The AI’s characteristic failure is confidently improving three nearby things that were not mentioned or not adjusting for things that would be impacted. The ticket’s scope section stops that.
• Keep the memory index lean. The index has a hard load limit of about 24 KB. Three times the AI wrote history into it past that limit (reaching to 36 KB) and the tail silently stopped being read. The rule now requires fact-by-fact verification that anything trimmed already exists in the detailed history.
• No false-flag risks. The AI once warned about a risk to existing users’ data two sentences after noting the app had not launched. Rule: do not raise a risk whose precondition is not currently true.

The one rule I applied to all of them: if something went wrong twice and it is something that can be fixed from a working principle, I wrote a rule.

I’ll describe one enhancement, traced through the record. A lunchtime question about what text a share button copies exposed 2 buttons producing 2 different results. The written workflow forbids going from idea to code, so first came research: 3 ways to select text, 2 rejected in writing, 1 chosen. Then a ticket with its out-of-scope list and its tradeoffs. Then 1 new file and 2 small opt-in edits, 4 rounds of device feedback, and the sign-off phrase. Ticket opened and closed in less than 20 minutes. Over the following 2 hours, the feature improved across 4 more sessions and 8 further checkpoints, each session starting from a fresh AI with no memory of the last, with zero re-explaining and zero regressions, because every session began by reading what the previous one had recorded.

Numbers · iOS, by the numbers

• 340+ commits,
• 70 verified merges,
• 4.9 commits per merge,
• largest day 28 commits.
• 110+ issues filed, 75+ closed, 30+ open. 75 commits touched documentation only (22 percent).
• 15+ Markdown documents in the repository, 96,400+ words, including the 11,500-word behavioural spec written for Android.
• Documentation to code ratio about 1 to 6 by lines, and the written record outweighs the code by words.
• 20 commits mention a revert, rollback or reset (5.8 percent).
• Median commit: 1 file, 20 lines added.
• A launch sweep of all 50 code files in the app folder found exactly 1 line of dead code, filed as a ticket and deferred rather than fixed, because fixing it meant a whole new release for zero user benefit.
• 2 iPad phases scoped and dropped;
• 2 experiments abandoned with their branches.

I see that look as you read those such strange boring numbers. Either hoping to find some faults Or just plain weirded out

Layer 3: Android, the same product with a different AI

Built twice, not ported

A port carries existing code to a new platform. That could not happen here. I always meant for my iOS app to be pure Swift on Apple’s frameworks and my Android app to be pure Kotlin on Google’s. Cross-platform toolkits exist whose whole purpose is one codebase for both, and I didn’t want such a route, because the point was to try to learn each platform natively and because a cross-platform reader inherits neither platform’s feel.

Tech · What crossed the platform gap

Where the two apps agree, it is because I wanted the same reliable fallbacks such as sentence-level quote cards, update banners instead of mid-read content swaps, etc. Where they differ, the platform was meant to win anyway. Some being:

• Apple’s iOS design language against Android’s Material 3 Expressive,
• a hand-won custom back gesture on iOS against Android’s system gesture/button,
• reading tints on iOS against a full colour-generation engine on Android.

Two independent builds in different languages produced reading screens within a hundred lines of the same size: ~2,550 on iOS, ~2,450 on Android.

Architect, Builder, Courier

The Android build was done in Android Studio with Google’s Gemini models through the API: Gemini Flash as the day-to-day builder and Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview for the heavier work, across two generations of each during the build. I did try to use Gemma models (e4b, 12b, and 26b) as well through Ollama in Android Studio, before and after the MLX models came out, but I couldn’t get Android Studio to give clean outputs in the chat interface even after several attempts. There was a ton of its internal messages like tool calls being thrown on the chat interface, which led to freezes in Android Studio. Another instance of how Google’s own offerings didn't work well naturally with each other).

First day involved a demolition because Gemini did some delightfully devious things. It forced me to rebuild from scratch and nuke implementation files for a clean slate. You cannot nuke implementation files on day one unless the attempt had gone horribly wrong. But what did it do? Gemini Pro used only a couple of M3 Expressive components even when told to precisely use others as well and it stitched together related structures to make it almost deliver the look rather than just use the components it was told to use. While at first glance, the look was there but there was no M3 Expressive character. I debated whether to just use Claude in Android Studio but I thought Gemini Flash/Pro models in Android Studio to build a pure Kotlin android app would be best served by Gemini. I was about to be reminded yet again of marketing hype vs reality. Even the latest Gemini Pro Preview model actively ignored the explicit instructions to use M3 Expressive components and I had to dig through the code files using my common sense to uncover that it was just using old components, again building a handful of related things to give the appearance of the M3 Expressive component and not addressing direct questions on whether the components were old or latest. Quite an eventful wasteful first day.

The second day of history seemed to have made quite a bit of progress: design system, network layer, content parser, browse screen, infinite scrolling, all at once. But the third day had a commit titled "Built plan to rescue the project". An audit against the written specs, run in multiple sprints, had found 8 graded defects (3 critical, 3 major, 2 minor) under 4 names beneath the fast-looking demo/progress: the scrolling feed bypassed the on-device database so offline reading was broken by construction; navigation had been flattened so switching tabs lost your place; code blocks, footnotes and collapsible sections had been silently dropped and fell through to a branch printing "Unsupported block type"; and the interface was stock boilerplate made to look like M3 Expressive instead of being M3 Expressive. The false confidence party had revealed itself. The rescue plan’s words for the cause: Gemini Pro had "aggressively summarized" the specifications and built the compressed version. None of it crashed, but not much of it worked, and Gemini, in all its wisdom, had self-certified it as a great output.

Reasoning · A new failure shape needed a new method

With Claude in Xcode, the method was, at least in a general sense, trust and verify: describe the outcome, guide the assistant and let it build, check the result. That method does not defend against silent simplification at the structural level, because the demo looks fine. What made me survive contact with Gemini in Android Studio was specify, contain, verify. The work split into two AI roles with a written constitution for each. The Architect managed state, data, navigation scaffolding and code review. The Builder wrote interface code strictly from task files the Architect prepared. And I became the courier. The protocol’s own words: "User takes the task file to the Builder in a new session." Me, hand-carrying instructions between two AI sessions that never spoke to each other. All this could have been avoided if Gemini didn't repeatedly summarised its instructions but I wanted to use Gemini to build the Android app. Also, I wanted to observe which instruction stuck enough to be even considered as a rule/principle. Wasteful but I was learning the difference between hype and reality. I meant I was learning from experience.

Tech · The Android control loop, from the repository

• 4 task files addressed to the Builder, each opening "ATTENTION FLASH: You are the Builder", down to examples like "Do not modify the math inside the tab bar controller. The Architect has guaranteed it works." The guaranteed math was later found to be wrong sometimes because Gemini mixed things randomly.
• 1 handoff protocol that opens "you have just been initialised in a new session. You currently have zero context" and says DO NOT in capitals 4 times: do not refactor the architecture, do not commit to main, do not ask the user to verify before you have verified, do not merge. Almost basic instructions but each of those had already happened at least once.
• 1 QA checklist whose test cases the commits cite by number: e.g. 10 commits can reference a test case.
• 21 commits named after the prompts that produced them. Prompt 3 alone: 1 implementation and 9 visible rounds of correction, 12 commits in all. I got the sequence of the prompts by working with Gemini Pro in a new Android Studio agent session and verifying with Claude in Xcode.
• Branch families numbered to 9 generations, plus a share-card branch that reached its third attempt. 24 local branches in all.
• The reflog, which records work that never made it to any branch, holds 61 unreachable commits in 20 abandoned chains: a 21-commit font branch dropped whole, an 8-commit search-keyboard branch dropped whole, and the quote-card day that reads as 18 commits in the history was 22 including the discards.

Reasoning · Where Gemini AI strained

• Gemini models repeatedly ignored precise instructions, edited multiple files in parallel into circular references, tried to run history-destroying git commands, and directly began editing files when I had explicitly made it clear that I was asking only for an answer in the chat. Each of those incidents is why the protocol has a capital-letter line. But these instances led to a loss of trust and I had to keep an eye on its runs.
• Both Flash and Pro lagged heavily and unpredictably after a session passed about 100,000 tokens. This was strange as both modes have a stated limit of 1 million. Even after my heavy use auto-upgraded my account to the higher Tier 2 API billing, the problem occurred every day and it felt like blocking bullets. Once the error messages like the model being used is under strain started appearing even on fresh sessions, it persisted and no solution worked. I tried to bypass it by opening new sessions, which required me to work in ways that broke thought flows. All in all, it wasn’t a great smooth experience even after using all first-party tools by the same company.
• Updating Android Studio purged the AI chat history. In my one and only update, I lost all my reasoning and design records and agreements with Gemini. A nasty horrible surprise. I can easily see how stuff like this can heavily discourage non/semi technical people from using the Studio.
• I had set Gemini up with a slightly modified tracking and self-learning workflow as Claude in iOS. Gemini never followed it. Even though it could verify that it would follow all the listed steps, it didn’t invoke anything during actual sessions. Explicitly triggering a sequence also made it skip or drop steps. So, it knew and promised to do the steps but kept dropping them during the real process.
• The apparatus copied from iOS was faithfully transplanted and then never exercised: 0 tickets against 112 on iOS; 1 lessons entry, and it is the template’s worked example; 1 tracker row, stamped with a fabricated date two years before the project existed; 6 merges across 293 commits against a written never-commit-to-main rule. The documentation folder stopped being updated with 130 of 293 commits (44 percent) still to come, and its last substantive file describes itself as generated from the code, because the code had become the only reliable record.

That was triage under cost pressure rather than carelessness. Every unit of AI attention was needed for the code and the rescue, and I was rationing my own attention as the courier. The price: this section had to be reconstructed from 293 one-line commit messages, and the reconstruction cost about fifty times what keeping the diary would have. Well, at least I know how to avoid this in my next projects. Learnings, folks.

What the Android app does, counted

Tech · The Android app in numbers

• Search runs on the device alone, down to image captions, table cells and footnotes, and works in airplane mode.
• Reading progress is measured by characters read rather than screens scrolled, so long and short articles measure honestly.
• Sharing a snippet lets you select only a contiguous run of sentences, and if you trim the ends the card adds an ellipsis so a quote cannot silently splice distant sentences together. The card preview is the same drawing as the export. That quality showcase was a very time-expensive feature to build in the app: 18 commits in one day, including one that rolls the whole feature back to a version from earlier the same afternoon. Another instance of Gemini being Gemini. Ultimately, I got it done from 3.7 Flash, rather than 3.1 Pro Preview.

The theme switch was a position reset: changing colour mid-article rebuilt the screen and lost your place, because Compose redraws what changed and a theme change declares that everything changed. The fix took 12 attempts in a single day, 4 of them reset away, and ended as a purpose-built scroll-position keeper now guarding every list in the app. A shared-element image transition took 6 commits and a revert in one day, the revert done with a Python script.

Where it stands

The Android app is mostly finished for its launch version. It renders the whole site natively, works offline, asks for 2 permissions and sends nothing anywhere. What it is waiting for is the Google Play Console account and the closed testing period Google requires.

Numbers · Android, by the numbers

• 290+ commits,
• 6 deliberate merges,
• 48.8 commits per merge,
• largest day 19 commits.
• Prefix breakdown: 95 feat, 79 fix, 23 refactor, 14 style, 5 docs.
• 9 commits touched documentation only (3 percent).
• 45+ Markdown files, 38,200+ words, almost all written before the documentation stopped.
• 15+ commits mention a revert, rollback or reset (6.1 percent).
• 60+ unreachable commits in 20 abandoned chains.
• Median commit: 2 files, 40 lines added.
• 24 local branches, 23 merged, mostly fast-forward.

What compounded

Reasoning · Layering learnings

The website was built first so the apps could stand on it. What that leaves out is that each layer made the next cheaper and the whole thing more stable:

• The site’s tagging rule became the apps’ structure. The apps can rebuild channels and sections by selectively using the same tags the site’s routing filters on.
• The site’s single colour table generates the palettes for 3 of its 4 skins and feeds the contrast audit.
• The iOS build produced the Android specification: 11,500 words of behaviour and 10 spec files, so the second platform aimed at parity instead of rediscovering the design. At least, it gave me a head start, and I could create a series of tactical prompts when working in Android Studio with Gemini.

The result is that one edit in Ghost changes both apps with zero releases, and a brand-new capability is the only thing that still needs code on three surfaces. I chose that boundary on purpose, and the apps degrade to a calm placeholder for something new rather than breaking.

Tech · Same idea, three surfaces

What kept it stable

The process numbers are where the difference between the builds lives, and they only make sense side by side.

Tech · Process, three columns

Reasoning · Why the record was the same act as shipping and made it easier too

On iOS, the sign-off phrase handed the AI a 9-step sequence in which the merge, the verification, the ticket closure and the log entries were steps of one act. I got what I wanted with the paperwork happening in the same beat. On Android, the same forms existed, but the task completed with only the code. Both builds had the process on paper. On iOS, it ran because the sign-off phrase triggered it; on Android, it didn’t trigger. Also, I didn’t want to fix that because of the additional costs it would have brought. So, the difference in the documentation depth is down to rationing too.

Some traceable things and benefits that the iOS record bought:

• Sessions that resume in minutes. 70 sign-offs, fresh AI instances picking up mid-feature with no recap conversations.
• A crash that cost nothing. One session hung the development environment and died mid-edit while exhausting the usage window. The next session reconstructed the state from the record, found half-finished work, chose to finish it forward rather than roll back, and shipped it the same night. An evening delayed became about twenty minutes of recovery.
• Solved problems that stayed solved. The freeze fix appears as a checked-off constraint 24 times. The one time a documented bug returned, the regression checklist caught it the same session because it says to re-test the specific historical failure when working nearby.
• Decisions I can still defend. For example - the record lists the syntax-colouring approaches evaluated for code blocks and why each was declined.
• Visible restraint. The launch sweep found 1 dead line in 50 files; the decision not to fix it is recorded, so anyone auditing can distinguish “didn’t get to it” from “chose not to, and here is why.”

The iOS comparison is possible only because I kept that record. The Android section had to be dug out of 293 commit messages.

What it cost

Tech · Money and tokens

Reasoning · Cost as a decision input

Both the Claude setups in VS Code and Xcode ran on the same fixed monthly subscription. They followed the workflows I wrote, stayed inside their usage limits, and when a session was consuming high amount of tokens, I could see the number and redirect them. The Gemini setup ran on API credit, and I bought credits several times because it really consumed tokens without offering stability. Both Flash and Pro lagged past 100,000 session tokens despite a 1 million limit, ignored instructions they had been given in full, and sprang frustrating surprises like Android Studio purged all the chat history when it updated. This pattern of inconsistent behaviour was harder to absorb as I was in a new environment as a beginner trying to design the three systems too. I did not intend to test and measure differences in model intelligence as my focus was on meeting my aim within the budget I had set. On few occasions, Gemini Flash was surprisingly coming up with much better tactical solutions than Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview model. What really differed was how predictably each behaved (Claude being the best at following instructions and preferences while pausing for my review before making critical assumptions (although not always).

Where the AI was wrong, spun, drifted or wasted

I can list these because my workflow recorded them. The curated rows here are the ones with the strongest numbers, grouped by failure type, because the same kinds recurred across three different AI setups.

Tech · The problems ledger by category and platform

The website count is highest for two reasons: two AIs cross-reviewing each other generated a written verdict for every miss, and the website’s record is the thickest. Android’s count is lowest because its record is thinnest; the reflog and commit log are most of what survives.

Why am I sharing this

I am sharing this mostly as-is to show the back-and-forth that happened when working in such tools for the first time. Obviously, you can’t always know the patterns that can be avoided beforehand. It is a process of learning.

I also want to share that for most normal non-tech people, the craft of creating even half-decent or personalised surfaces and apps isn’t easy, even with AI. The discipline and art/experience required to build such surfaces can still not be so easily disregarded just because you have AI.

Also, AI can be incredibly inefficient, frustrating, wrong and inconsistent in its approach and responses, even in the most mundane tasks. Unless you have a strong usage plan, I seriously doubt most people with a non-tech background/experience will be able to get anything functional out of their ideas. The usage can get eaten up quickly within a few minutes. And inevitably, you will find yourself reaching for the higher-tier models. While I can certainly say that the technology is truly excellent in its ability to drastically lower the entry bar for coding, the fundamental ways in which a person (tech or non-tech) could start to build software haven’t changed and people still need to pay attention to their structures.

Reasoning · How to read the rows

Each row is a moment the AI was wrong, stuck, drifting or wasteful, with the numbers that were recorded and what I did about it. Wherever I found a tendency or pattern in failures or issues, I checked whether a rule, a stop, or a redirect is needed. That is what some of the rows are for.

A. Wrong assumption or invented fact

B. Spinning on a fix

C. Scope drift and unasked changes

D. Record or status drift

E. Token, cost, quota and context waste

F. Verification gap: claimed done, was not

G. Bad tricks and fragile workarounds

H. Tooling and platform friction

The general rules that came out of it

This is a general checklist I would hand to anyone starting a build they cannot personally perform.

1. If you can, try the buy path before you build. The build decision was earned by 1,900 lines of customisation across 19 files of a bought theme and one upgrade that surfaced 7 undocumented changes.
2. Own the structure other things depend on. The site’s routing page and 6 content contracts are what let two apps be steered with zero releases.
3. Set the fallback before or with the feature. The coming-soon rule on both apps (about 20 content types on one, 17 plus 1 on the other) is why the reader could ship those features in stages while not looking broken. Include a fallback message for any feature that needs a fail-safe message.
4. Two failures can mean a missing rule. 22 rules on iOS, each written after a specific incident; 10 of them are do-not-re-attempt-when or do-not-re-attempt-as-long-as entries.
5. Fix an attempt limit and honour it. YouTube stopped at 4 approaches. The portrait bug stopped at 5. The website’s tripwire was written as “attempt 1 of at most 2, then fall back to the simple model.”
6. Make the record the same act as shipping. 109 log entries and 78 closed tickets where the record was a sign-off step; 1 entry and 0 tickets where it was a separate duty.
7. Fresh eyes can beat another round. The tint bug ate 3 sessions and 2 rewrites on one AI and was diagnosed in 1 pass by the other from the live page.
8. Do not accept ‘verified’ without the proof artifact. An evidence file that said “injections emptied” was contradicted by 2,939 and 5,319 characters still in the database.
9. Treat tokens as money. Be mindful of how many tokens are being used. Reduce tokens while increasing quality by not being vague and thinking through scope of every ask in every instance.
10. Build what is feasible and propose/phase the rest. The 34 open tickets on iOS are the phased plan written down.

What carries into a team

I kept thinking about this as a work problem too, because it is one. An AI assistant behaves like a capable contractor with no memory. It is fast and confident and does not care if it cannot remember what it agreed to yesterday. Teams have the same problem with rotation, leave and handover, and they solve it with written structure. The table below provides a very high-level map of what I did to what a team could do, with the number from this build that earned each row.

Reasoning · Build practice to team practice

Where it stands today and what's next

The website is live at rohitparihar.com. The iOS app is on the App Store. The Android app is built and works but would need to undergo Google’s mandatory testing period for few weeks and I would need 12 testers who frequently interact with the app during that period.

Below, I am sharing a few screenshots from the apps that I had created for the store submissions.

iOS app screenshots

iPad app screenshots

Android app screenshots

Thoughts at this point

AI is certainly powerful in creating systems if you observe the patterns and learn and adjust along the way. It is as much a mindset shift and alignment as much as grit in getting things done if you don’t want to one-shot it. I could not write a line of any programming language when I started. And nearly all of the interfaces of these systems were an alien language to me. I still don’t understand most of the programming languages used and I can’t say with complete certainty whether big opportunities still exist in refactoring pockets or swathes of the codebases. Although I have run such checks and it has been concluded by each AI that the code is efficient given the environment it is meant to operate in, I am also aware of how many times I have had to steer and correct the AI to adopt a proper solution.

All along the way, I’ve been constantly imagining how the learnings from my experience and the mindset I approached my projects with could be applied to teams to enhance both the quality and efficiency of their work. HR and HR Technology teams can really benefit from adapting how they get work done. I am planning to write on that.

I am also planning to write on how you can use AI to get started with building systems you have wanted to build. I’ll update this article to include those links when they are done. Most of the articles will be for non-tech people.

Now that the surfaces are relatively stable, I can focus on sharing my content.