The Power of Focus in Agentic Coding | Tenzin's BlogAlex Graveley, the guy behind GitHub Copilot, showed me how I’d been thinking about agentic coding wrong.<br>He used pen and paper.<br>Alex dropped by our Mission Street office on a Tuesday. I told him we had about a week of work left to get self-serve working.<br>“No. That should take 4 hours.”<br>He pulled out a sheet of paper, wrote down ten steps, and handed it to me. That was the plan.<br>I’ve been through every phase: ChatGPT copy/paste, Cursor, Claude Code, Codex, back to Claude Code, subagents, orchestration frameworks, 10 parallel sessions. The assumption was that more tooling meant more output.<br>That assumption is half-right. The real constraint is undirected scope, not the model or the tools. Without a fixed list, parallel agents multiply your WIP, not your throughput. You end up with ten sessions, five half-finished features, and nothing shipped.<br>Parallelism only helps when every agent is pointed at the right thing.<br>Agentic coding makes hard things look like low-hanging fruit. A feature will only take an hour, so you fire off a session. Then another. Suddenly you’re ten commits deep in a niche optimization nobody asked for. Alex calls this “fake work”—all the motion that doesn’t move a metric or unblock a user. In startups, the only thing that matters is getting users and removing blockers to that goal.<br>Alex’s process is blunt: ten steps on paper, two Claude Code sessions, nothing else. Work through the list until done. The checklist is a contract with yourself about what ships today.<br>He starts every project with a fresh CLAUDE.md. He only adds lines when something annoys him. Claude keeps asking whether to commit? Update the file. He calls it annoyance-driven development: you don’t pre-load rules, you earn them through friction. Here’s where we ended up by the end of our session:<br>keep everything as concise as possible<br>no unnecessary abstractions<br>no unnecessary comments<br>when the next step is obvious, do it without asking<br>always be as general as possible<br>parallelize independent steps whenever possible<br>On prompting: I stuff agents with context, design docs, previous sessions. He keeps prompts short. For tasks a thousand teams have already solved (ECS, auth, DB migrations), more context means more noise. The model already knows the generic path; what it doesn’t know are your sharp constraints, which is where you spend your context budget.<br>On early optimizations: I default to thinking about reliability and scaling way ahead of when it matters. “Building for scale with a handful of users is avoidance.”<br>This changes scope discipline, not the quality bar. The ten-step list is a forcing function, not a shortcut around quality. When you ship a step, you verify it works. The discipline is in writing the list tightly enough that each step has a clear done-state: something you can check, not just declare.<br>What it does kill is architectural drift from over-scoped agents. Short prompts, tight scope, explicit review at each step. That’s the governance. Simple, but it holds.<br>By the end of our session we were on step 6 of 10.<br>“Don’t stop until you finish the list. Tomorrow, rinse and repeat.”<br>By night, anyone who requested access could onboard end-to-end.<br>In the age of agentic coding, focus is the superpower. Scope creep that feels like velocity is eating most of your AI-coding gains. More sessions, more output, less of what actually matters shipped.<br>I came into that conversation thinking the bottleneck was tooling. More parallelism, richer context, smarter orchestration.<br>I left with a crossed-off list on a sheet of paper. The milestone shipped.<br>Look at what you’re working on right now. Can you write it down in clear steps on a sheet of paper? If not, you’re running on a vibe, not an explicit plan.