We're a senior engineering team. We move carefully, ship quality, and take real ownership — from architecture to production. Every role shapes what we build next.
Join a team that takes software seriously. Every hire shapes what we build next.
Straightforward, respectful, and human from start to finish. No ghosting, no trick questions.
Submit your application with CV and a short cover note.
We review within 3 business days and reach out personally.
A real-world task — your craft, not trick whiteboard puzzles.
Culture conversation and offer if it is a great mutual match.
We invest in you — your health, your growth, and your best day of work.
Work from anywhere. Async-friendly, no unnecessary meetings — outcomes over attendance.
Own your schedule. We measure what you ship, not when you clock in or out.
Annual learning budget for books, courses, certifications, and conferences — per engineer.
Full health and dental insurance for you and your dependants, wherever you are.
Latest equipment plus any peripherals you need to do your best work, no questions asked.
Twice-yearly off-sites. We believe face-time matters — past retreats: Kyoto, Yangon.
Four principles we return to every time we make a hard call.
We take the time to build things properly. No shortcuts, no tech debt spirals that haunt the next team.
Everyone owns outcomes. No bureaucracy — just clear responsibility and shared wins.
Budget for conferences, courses, and books. You should leave us a better engineer than when you arrived.
Security is baked into every PR and architecture decision from day one, not a checklist at the end.
Real questions we ask. No trick questions — we want to understand how you think, build, and communicate.
We are looking for ownership, structured thinking under pressure, and genuine reflection. A great answer covers detection speed, communication to stakeholders, the fix, and a concrete lesson that changed a process or code pattern afterwards.
This reveals engineering judgement. We value engineers who can articulate the real cost of dependencies (maintenance, security surface, abstraction leaks) versus the opportunity cost of building in-house. There is no universally right answer — context is everything.
Strong engineers use reviews to share knowledge, not just find bugs. We want to see that you leave actionable comments, separate blocking concerns from suggestions, and treat the author's time as valuable. Nit-picking style instead of substance is a red flag.
Translation skill is as important as technical depth. We look for concreteness — analogies, timelines, impact framing — rather than hand-waving. Bonus points if you mention how you confirm the stakeholder actually understood.
This is a trust question. Admitting mistakes and describing course-correction shows maturity. We want specifics, not vague generalisations. Candidates who cannot name a regret either lack self-awareness or have not shipped enough real code.
We do not want perfectionism that blocks delivery, nor cowboy speed that creates debt. Listen for deliberate trade-offs — "I shipped X with a TODO to refactor Y in the next sprint and we actually did it."