<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
	<channel>
		<title>Resilience on Alex Hudson</title>
		<link>https://www.alexhudson.com/tags/resilience/</link>
		<description>Recent content in Resilience on Alex Hudson</description>
		<generator>Hugo</generator>
		<language>en-GB</language>
		
		
		
			<copyright>Published work of Alex Hudson, all rights reserved.</copyright>
		
		
			<lastBuildDate>Wed, 20 May 2026 09:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		
			<atom:link href="https://www.alexhudson.com/tags/resilience/feed/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
			<item>
				<title>Aigre: the AI-Governed Runtime Engineering Approach</title>
				<link>https://www.alexhudson.com/2026/05/20/aigre-the-ai-governed-runtime-engineering-approach/</link>
				<pubDate>Wed, 20 May 2026 09:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<guid>https://www.alexhudson.com/2026/05/20/aigre-the-ai-governed-runtime-engineering-approach/</guid>
				<description>&lt;p&gt;Most teams already let production shape what they do next, but we still think in these relatively linear cycles from idea to production. An incident changes a feature requirement. A cost spike forces a redesign. A support pattern triggers a new feature flag or rate limit. These issues get ticketed, included into the backlog, and the development team attempts to address this growing list in priority order.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The software industry is still grappling with novel AI technology. There are a range of opinions on how to best incorporate these systems - from giving the AI narrow and specific roles within the existing org structures, through to tearing the whole thing up and running a software factory with swarms of &amp;ldquo;agents&amp;rdquo; doing relatively unreviewed work. But even in the most radical approaches, this linear &amp;ldquo;we design something, make it, deploy it and then run it&amp;rdquo; thinking still dominates.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
