Building Mindlap from 0→1

Building Mindlap from 0→1

I was the sole designer behind Mindlap, an AI-native platform built at Think41 for orchestrating AI agents across the software development lifecycle. I owned the product end to end, from user research and interaction design to the design system, engineering collaboration, implementation QA, and continuous product refinement.

Role :

Designer

Researcher

Team :

4 Engineers

3 Co-founders

Timeline :

Jun 2025 -

Jun 2026

Skills :

UX Design

Vibe coding

96.2%

96.2%

agent reliability in production

only 47 of 1,247 runs needed human intervention/failed

83%

83%

parity with human engineering hours

benchmarked against 4 real, already-shipped PRs

87.3h

87.3h

$4,365 reclaimed

the time-saved/value figure

Context

Software development is fragmented

Software development is fragmented

Modern teams lean on AI to accelerate coding; it improves velocity and fragments context in the same motion. Requirements, architecture, and decisions are scattered across Jira, GitHub, Slack, and documentation that quickly falls out of date.


Mindlap gives engineers and AI agents a shared understanding of the system they are building.

Scattered context

Scattered context

Requirements, code, docs, and decisions live across disconnected tools.

Broken workflows

Broken workflows

Context switching, outdated docs, and inconsistent AI outputs.

No shared source of truth

No shared source of truth

Humans and AI work with different understandings of the project.

Research & Insights

Teams fail at context continuity

Teams fail at context continuity

I led qualitative research with engineering managers and developers through interviews, workflow mapping, and artifact analysis. The goal was to understand where alignment breaks down once AI enters the development process.

Key Insights

  • Teams do not fail at execution; they fail at context continuity

  • Documentation loses trust when it does not evolve alongside code

  • AI tools work best when they operate within a well-defined system boundary

  • Decision-making is continuous, but decision records are not

These insights revealed the need for a system that doesn’t just store information, but actively binds intent, decisions, and execution over time. That became Laps: structured loops that bind intent, execution, and reflection.

The reframe for the product:

Users didn't need to see more data. They needed proof the AI running unsupervised was worth what they were already paying for it.

Solution

From fragmented cycles to structured execution laps

From fragmented cycles to structured execution laps

Fragmented context needed a structural answer, not another dashboard. The fix was to stop treating intent, execution, and decisions as separate artifacts scattered across four tools, and bind them into one loop instead: the Lap.


A Lap starts with intent, carries it through agent execution, and closes with reflection so the reasoning behind a decision lives next to the code it produced

Human–AI-in-the-loop by design

mindlap is built around a human and AI-in-the-loop model, where AI agents accelerate execution while humans retain authorship, judgment, and accountability.
Decisions are not automated away, they are surfaced, reviewed, and fed back into the system as evolving context.

Why spec-driven development matters in AI-native workflows

As AI accelerates code generation, specifications become the primary interface between intent and execution.
MindLap treats specs not as documentation, but as executable infrastructure continuously synchronized with code, decisions, and outcomes across each Lap.

Features

Shipped screens, and the exploration around them

Shipped screens, and the exploration around them

Users were able to define their intent and run parallel laps and complete tasks by playing the role od a deep expert over micromanaging the agent at every stage.

Define intent → execute with agents

A Lap starts with intent, not a ticket, then hands off to context-aware agents working inside that Lap's scope.

Orchestrate and manage agents

Human in the loop - Review

PWA app for monitoring

Define intent → execute with agents

A Lap starts with intent, not a ticket, then hands off to context-aware agents working inside that Lap's scope.

Orchestrate and manage agents

Human in the loop - Review

PWA app for monitoring

Interaction Design

Motion has to mean something, or it doesn't ship.

Motion has to mean something, or it doesn't ship.

Omni the one surface that carries a user from typing an instruction, to watching an agent work, to auditing what it shipped, without a single page load in between.

Reflection

What I've learned

What I've learned

Designing trust for a fleet of AI agents that ship real code turned out to be a completely different problem than designing the screens around them.

Trust is harder to design

Trust is harder to design

When an agent runs it unsupervised, busy tells you nothing, the only real number is whether you can trust what it did while you weren't looking.

Clever isn't the same as clear

Clever isn't the same as clear

New users just saw words they had to look up the F1 references (laps) before they could use the product. If you have to explain the name, you've already lost the exchange.

Coding wasn't the hard part

Coding wasn't the hard part

From iterations to implementation, polishing and debugging, its way easier and faster with custom skills and subagents.

Turning specifications into living infrastructure for AI-native execution.