This site isn't just about building AI products. It was built with them. Every page, every piece of copy, every responsive breakpoint, every image prompt was handled by an AI agent directed by a single human in the loop.
That's not a footnote. It's the point. I talk about agentic building professionally. I wanted to know what it actually felt like to do it on something I owned completely.
This is what dogfooding looks like.
Each tool played a distinct role. The work didn't happen inside any one of them. It happened in the hand-offs between them.
Not sequential. Not clean. A tight loop of intent, execution, observation, and correction, running at machine speed with a human setting the direction at every turn.
These are representative examples from the actual build sessions. The kinds of exchanges that produced every page on this site.
--cyan for the tag accent on AI items, --magenta for leadership. The filter tabs can use your existing subnav pattern so it's zero extra JS.
The bottleneck was never the agent. It was how precisely I could say what I wanted. Vague direction produced vague output every time. The clearer the intent, the less rework. That's not a finding about AI. That's a finding about direction.
Context is everything. The annotate feature in Claude Code and Codex was one of the biggest unlocks on this build. Pinning context directly to a file kept conversations focused and edits constrained to what actually needed to change. Without it, the AI is working from a blurrier picture and the drift shows up in the output.
There is also a real ceiling on how much you can hand off at once. A long list of updates sounds efficient. It isn't. The AI starts combining tasks it sees as related, and after a while it quietly loses track of the individual asks. Smaller, tighter prompts with clear scope consistently outperformed the big batch approach.
The loop moved fast enough that the mental model shifted. It stopped feeling like using a tool. You still have to lead it. That part doesn't go away.