Last week I was in Sochi on a ski trip. Instead of skiing, I got sick.
So I spent a few days locked in a hotel room, doing what I always do when I can’t move much: working. Or at least what looks like work. In reality, it’s my hobby.
YouTube wasn’t working well there, so I downloaded a few episodes in advance. Most of them were about OpenClaw and its creator, Peter Steinberger — also known for building PSPDFKit.
What started as passive watching turned into one of those rare moments of clarity you only get when you’re forced to slow down.
Shipping Code You Don’t Read (In the Right Context)
In one of the interviews, Peter said something that immediately caught my attention: he ships code he doesn’t review.
At first that sounds reckless. But then I realized… I sometimes do the same.
However, context matters.
Most of my daily work is research and development. I build experimental systems, prototypes, and proofs of concept — either for our internal office or for exploring ideas with clients. A lot of what I write is not production software yet. It’s exploratory. It’s about testing possibilities.
In that environment, I don’t always need to read every line of generated code.
If the use case works and the tests pass, that’s often enough.
I work mainly with C#, ASP.NET, Entity Framework, and XAF from DevExpress. I know these ecosystems extremely well. So if something breaks later, I can go in and fix it myself. But most of the time, the goal isn’t to perfect the implementation — it’s to validate the idea.
That’s a crucial distinction.
When writing production code for a customer, quality and review absolutely matter. You must inspect, verify, and ensure maintainability. But when working on experimental R&D, the priority is different: speed of validation and clarity of results.
In research mode, not every line needs to be perfect. It just needs to prove whether the idea works.
Working “Without Hands”
My real goal is to operate as much as possible without hands.
By that I mean minimizing direct human interaction with implementation. I want to express intent clearly enough so agents can execute it.
If I can describe a system precisely — especially in domains I know deeply — then the agent should be able to build, test, and refine it. My role becomes guiding and validating rather than manually constructing everything.
This is where modern development is heading.
The Problem With Vibe Coding
Peter talked about something that resonated deeply: when you’re vibe coding, you produce a lot of AI slop.
You prompt. The AI generates. You run it. It fails. You tweak. You run again. Still wrong. You tweak again.
Eventually, the human gets tired.
Even when you feel close to a solution, it’s not done until it’s actually done. And manually pushing that process forward becomes exhausting.
This is where many AI workflows break down. Not because the AI can’t generate solutions — but because the loop still depends too heavily on human intervention.
Closing the Loop
The key idea is simple and powerful: agentic development works when the agent can test and correct itself.
You must close the loop.
Instead of: human → prompt → AI → human checks → repeat
You want: AI → builds → tests → detects errors → fixes → tests again → repeat
The agent needs tools to evaluate its own output.
When AI can run tests, detect failures, and iterate automatically, something shifts. The process stops being experimental prompting and starts becoming real engineering.
Spec-Driven vs Self-Correcting Systems
Spec-driven development still matters. Some people dismiss it as too close to waterfall, but every methodology has flaws.
The real evolution is combining clear specifications with self-correcting loops.
The human defines:
The specification
The expected behavior
The acceptance criteria
Then the AI executes, tests, and refines until those criteria are satisfied.
The human doesn’t need to babysit every iteration. The human validates the result once the loop is closed.
Engineering vs Parasitic Ideas
There’s a concept from a book about parasitic ideas.
In social sciences, parasitic ideas can spread because they’re hard to disprove. In engineering, bad ideas fail quickly.
If you design a bridge incorrectly, it collapses. Reality provides immediate feedback.
Software — especially AI-generated software — needs the same grounding in reality. Without continuous testing and validation, generated code can drift into something that looks plausible but doesn’t work.
Closing the loop forces ideas to confront reality.
Tests are that reality.
Taking the Human Out of the Repetitive Loop
The goal isn’t removing humans entirely. It’s removing humans from repetitive validation.
The human should:
Define the specification
Define what “done” means
Approve the final result
The AI should:
Implement
Test
Detect issues
Fix itself
Repeat until success
When that happens, development becomes scalable in a new way. Not because AI writes code faster — but because AI can finish what it starts.
What I Realized in That Hotel Room
Getting sick in Sochi wasn’t part of the plan. But it forced me to slow down long enough to notice something important.
Most friction in modern development isn’t writing code. It’s closing loops.
We generate faster than we validate. We start more than we finish. We rely on humans to constantly re-check work that machines could verify themselves.
In research and experimental work, it’s fine not to inspect every line — as long as the system proves its behavior. In production work, deeper review is essential. Knowing when each approach applies is part of modern engineering maturity.
The future of agentic development isn’t just better models. It’s better loops.
Because in the end, nothing is finished until the loop is closed.
Same UI language.
Totally unpredictable content language.
Spanish, Russian, Italian… sometimes all in the same message.
Humans handle that fine.
Vector retrieval… not so much.
This is the “silent failure” scenario: retrieval looks plausible, the LLM sounds confident, and you ship nonsense.
So I had to change the game.
The Idea: Structured RAG
Structured RAG means you don’t embed raw text and pray.
You add a step before retrieval:
Extract a structured representation from each activity record
Store it as metadata (JSON)
Use that metadata to filter, route, and rank
Then do vector similarity on a cleaner, more stable representation
Think of it like this:
Unstructured text is what users write.
Structured metadata is what your RAG system can trust.
Why This Fix Works for Mixed Languages
The core problem with activity streams is not “language”.
The core problem is: you have no stable shape.
When the shape is missing, everything becomes fuzzy:
Who is speaking?
What is this about?
Which entities are involved?
Is this a reply, a reaction, a mention, a task update?
What language(s) are in here?
Structured RAG forces you to answer those questions once, at write-time, and save the answers.
PostgreSQL: Add a JSONB Column (and Keep pgvector)
We keep the previous approach (pgvector) but we add a JSONB column for structured metadata.
ALTER TABLE activities
ADD COLUMN rag_meta jsonb NOT NULL DEFAULT '{}'::jsonb;
-- Optional: if you store embeddings per activity/chunk
-- you keep your existing embedding column(s) or chunk table.
Then index it.
CREATE INDEX activities_rag_meta_gin
ON activities
USING gin (rag_meta);
Now you can filter with JSON queries before you ever touch vector similarity.
A Proposed Schema (JSON Shape You Control)
The exact schema depends on your product, but for activity streams I want at least:
language: detected languages + confidence
actors: who did it
subjects: what object is involved (ticket, order, user, document)
topics: normalized tags
relationships: reply-to, mentions, references
summary: short canonical summary (ideally in one pivot language)
Notice what happened here: the raw multilingual chaos got converted into a stable structure.
Write-Time Pipeline (The Part That Feels Expensive, But Saves You)
Structured RAG shifts work to ingestion time.
Yes, it costs tokens.
Yes, it adds steps.
But it gives you something you never had before: predictable retrieval.
Here’s the pipeline I recommend:
Store raw activity (as-is, don’t lose the original)
Detect language(s) (fast heuristic + LLM confirmation if needed)
Extract structured metadata into your JSON schema
Generate a canonical “summary” in a pivot language (often English)
Embed the summary + key fields (not the raw messy text)
Save JSON + embedding
The key decision: embed the stable representation, not the raw stream text.
C# Conceptual Implementation
I’m going to keep the code focused on the architecture. Provider details are swappable.
Entities
public sealed class Activity
{
public long Id { get; set; }
public string RawText { get; set; } = "";
public string UiLanguage { get; set; } = "en";
// JSONB column in Postgres
public string RagMetaJson { get; set; } = "{}";
// Vector (pgvector) - store via your pgvector mapping or raw SQL
public float[] RagEmbedding { get; set; } = Array.Empty<float>();
public DateTimeOffset CreatedAt { get; set; }
}
Metadata Contract (Strongly Typed in Code, Stored as JSONB)
public sealed class RagMeta
{
public int SchemaVersion { get; set; } = 1;
public List<DetectedLanguage> Languages { get; set; } = new();
public ActorMeta Actor { get; set; } = new();
public List<SubjectMeta> Subjects { get; set; } = new();
public List<string> Topics { get; set; } = new();
public RelationshipMeta Relationships { get; set; } = new();
public string Intent { get; set; } = "unknown";
public SummaryMeta Summary { get; set; } = new();
}
public sealed class DetectedLanguage
{
public string Code { get; set; } = "und";
public double Confidence { get; set; }
}
public sealed class ActorMeta
{
public string Id { get; set; } = "";
public string DisplayName { get; set; } = "";
}
public sealed class SubjectMeta
{
public string Type { get; set; } = "";
public string Id { get; set; } = "";
}
public sealed class RelationshipMeta
{
public string? ReplyTo { get; set; }
public List<string> Mentions { get; set; } = new();
}
public sealed class SummaryMeta
{
public string PivotLanguage { get; set; } = "en";
public string Text { get; set; } = "";
}
Extractor + Embeddings
You need two services:
Metadata extraction (LLM fills the schema)
Embeddings (Microsoft.Extensions.AI) for the stable text
public interface IRagMetaExtractor
{
Task<RagMeta> ExtractAsync(Activity activity, CancellationToken ct);
}
Then the ingestion pipeline:
using System.Text.Json;
using Microsoft.Extensions.AI;
public sealed class StructuredRagIngestor
{
private readonly IRagMetaExtractor _extractor;
private readonly IEmbeddingGenerator<string, Embedding<float>> _embeddings;
public StructuredRagIngestor(
IRagMetaExtractor extractor,
IEmbeddingGenerator<string, Embedding<float>> embeddings)
{
_extractor = extractor;
_embeddings = embeddings;
}
public async Task ProcessAsync(Activity activity, CancellationToken ct)
{
// 1) Extract structured JSON
RagMeta meta = await _extractor.ExtractAsync(activity, ct);
// 2) Create stable text for embeddings (summary + keywords)
string stableText =
$"{meta.Summary.Text}\n" +
$"Topics: {string.Join(", ", meta.Topics)}\n" +
$"Intent: {meta.Intent}";
// 3) Embed stable text
var emb = await _embeddings.GenerateAsync(new[] { stableText }, ct);
float[] vector = emb.First().Vector.ToArray();
// 4) Save into activity record
activity.RagMetaJson = JsonSerializer.Serialize(meta);
activity.RagEmbedding = vector;
// db.SaveChangesAsync(ct) happens outside (unit of work)
}
}
This is the core move: you stop embedding chaos and start embedding structure.
Query Pipeline: JSON First, Vectors Second
When querying, you don’t jump into similarity search immediately.
You do:
Parse the user question
Decide filters (actor, subject type, topic)
Filter with JSONB (fast narrowing)
Then do vector similarity on the remaining set
Example: filter by topic + intent using JSONB:
SELECT id, raw_text
FROM activities
WHERE rag_meta @> '{"intent":"support_request"}'::jsonb
AND rag_meta->'topics' ? 'invoice'
ORDER BY rag_embedding <=> @query_embedding
LIMIT 20;
That “JSON first” step is what keeps multilingual streams from poisoning your retrieval.
Tradeoffs (Because Nothing Is Free)
Structured RAG costs more at write-time:
more tokens
more latency
more moving parts
But it saves you at query-time:
less noise
better precision
more predictable answers
debuggable failures (because you can inspect metadata)
In real systems, I’ll take predictable and debuggable over “cheap but random” every day.
Final Thought
RAG over activity streams is hard because activity streams are messy by design.
If you want RAG to behave, you need structure.
Structured RAG is how you make retrieval boring again.
And boring retrieval is exactly what you want.
In the next article, I’ll go deeper into the exact pipeline details: language routing, mixed-language detection, pivot summaries, chunk policies, and how I made this production-friendly without turning it into a token-burning machine.
using OpenAI;
using Microsoft.Extensions.AI;
using Microsoft.Extensions.AI.OpenAI;
var client = new OpenAIClient("YOUR_API_KEY");
IEmbeddingGenerator<string, Embedding<float>> embeddings =
client.AsEmbeddingGenerator("text-embedding-3-small");
Generating a Vector
var result = await embeddings.GenerateAsync(
new[] { "Some activity text" });
float[] vector = result.First().Vector.ToArray();
That vector is what drives everything that follows.
⚠️ Embeddings Are Model-Locked (And Language Makes It Worse)
Embeddings are model-locked.
Meaning:
Vectors from different embedding models cannot be compared.
Even if:
the dimension matches
the text is identical
the provider is the same
Each model defines its own universe.
But here’s the kicker I learned the hard way:
Multilingual content amplifies this problem.
Even with multilingual-capable models:
language mixing shifts vector space
short messages lose semantic anchors
similarity becomes noisy
In an activity stream:
English UI
Spanish content
Russian replies
Emoji everywhere
Vector distance starts to mean “kind of related, maybe”.
That’s not good enough.
PostgreSQL + pgvector (Still the Right Choice)
Despite all that, PostgreSQL with pgvector is still the right foundation.
Enable pgvector
CREATE EXTENSION IF NOT EXISTS vector;
Chunk-Based Table
CREATE TABLE doc_chunks (
id bigserial PRIMARY KEY,
document_id bigint NOT NULL,
chunk_index int NOT NULL,
content text NOT NULL,
embedding vector(1536) NOT NULL,
created_at timestamptz NOT NULL DEFAULT now()
);
Technically correct.
Architecturally incomplete — as I later discovered.
Retrieval: Where Things Quietly Go Wrong
SELECT content
FROM doc_chunks
ORDER BY embedding <=> @query_embedding
LIMIT 5;
This query decides:
what the model sees
what it ignores
how wrong the answer will be
When language is mixed, retrieval looks correct — but isn’t.
Classic example: Moscow
Spanish:Moscú
Italian:Mosca
Meaning in Spanish: 🪰 a fly
So for a Spanish speaker, “Mosca” looks like it should mean insect (which it does), but it’s also the Italian name for Moscow.
Why RAG Failed in This Scenario
Let’s be honest:
Similar ≠ relevant
Multilingual ≠ multilingual-safe
Short activity messages ≠ documents
Noise ≠ knowledge
RAG didn’t fail because the model was bad.
It failed because the data had no structure.
Why This Article Exists
This article exists because:
I tried RAG on a real system
With real users
Writing in real languages
In real combinations
And the naïve RAG approach didn’t survive.
What Comes Next
The next article will not be about:
embeddings
models
APIs
It will be about structured RAG.
How I fixed this by:
introducing structure into the activity stream
separating concerns in the pipeline
controlling language before retrieval
reducing semantic noise
making RAG predictable again
In other words:
How to make RAG work after it breaks.
Final Thought
RAG is not magic.
It’s:
search + structure + discipline
If your data is chaotic, RAG will faithfully reflect that chaos — just with confidence.
Happy New Year 2026 🎆
If you’re reading this:
Happy New Year 2026.
Let’s make this the year we stop trusting demos
and start trusting systems that survived reality.
It’s Sunday — so maybe it’s time to write an article to break the flow I’ve been in lately. I’ve been deep into researching design patterns for Oqtane, the web application framework created by Shaun Walker.
Today I woke up really early, around 4:30 a.m. I went downstairs, made coffee, and decided to play around with some applications I had on my list. One of them was HotKey Typer by James Montemagno.
I ran it for the first time and instantly loved it. It’s super simple and useful — but I had a problem. I started using glasses a few years ago, and I generally have trouble with small UI elements on the computer. I usually work at 150% scaling. Unfortunately, James’s app has a fixed window size, so everything looked cut off.
Since I’ve been coding a lot lately, I figured it would be an easy fix. I tweaked it — and it worked! Everything looked better, but a bit too large, so I adjusted it again… and again… and again. Before I knew it, I had turned it into a totally different application.
I was vibe coding for four or five hours straight. In the end, I added a lot of new functionality because I genuinely loved the app and the idea behind it. I added sets (or collections) — basically groups of snippets you can assign to keys 1–9. Then I added autosave, a settings screen, and a reset option for the collections. Every time I finished one feature, I said, “Just one more thing.” Five minutes turned into five hours.
When I was done, I recorded a demo video. It was a lot of fun — and the result was genuinely useful. I even want to create an installer for myself so I can easily reinstall it if I ever reformat my computer. (I used to be that guy who formatted his PC every month. Not anymore… but you never know.)
Lessons From Vibe Coding
I learned a lot from this little experiment. I’ve been vibe coding nonstop for about three months now — I’ve even used up all my Copilot credits before the 25th of the month more than once! Vibe coding is a lot of fun, but it can easily spiral out of control and take you in the wrong direction.
Next week, I want to change my approach a bit — maybe follow a more structured pattern.
Another thing this reminded me of is how important it is to work in a team. My business partner, José Javier Columbie, has always helped me with that. We’ve been working together for about 10 years now. I’m the kind of developer who keeps rewriting, refactoring, optimizing, making things faster, reusable, turning them into plugins or frameworks — and sometimes the original task was actually quite small.
That’s where Javier comes in. He’s the one who says, “José, it’s done. This is what they asked for, and this is what we’re delivering.” He keeps me grounded. Every developer needs that — or at least needs to learn how to set that boundary for themselves.
Final Thoughts
So that’s my takeaway from today’s vibe coding session: have fun, but know when to stop.
I’ll include below the links to:
James Montemagno’s original HotKey Typer repository
SyncFramework for XPO is a specialized implementation of our delta encoding synchronization library, designed specifically for DevExpress XPO users. It enables efficient data synchronization by tracking and transmitting only the changes between data versions, optimizing both bandwidth usage and processing time.
What’s New
Base target framework updated to .NET 8.0
Added compatibility with .NET 9.0
Updated DevExpress XPO dependencies to 24.2.3
Continued support for delta encoding synchronization
Various performance improvements and bug fixes
Framework Compatibility
Primary Target: .NET 8.0
Additional Support: .NET 9.0
Our XPO implementation continues to serve the DevExpress community.
Key Features
Seamless integration with DevExpress XPO
Efficient delta-based synchronization
Support for multiple database providers
Cross-platform compatibility
Easy integration with existing XPO and XAF applications
As always, if you own a license, you can compile the source code yourself from our GitHub repository. The framework maintains its commitment to providing reliable data synchronization for XPO applications.