
COMPANY PLAYBOOK
Fleet
System principles
- Separate the maker from the verifier.
- Separate planning from the release batch.
- Tie stage transitions to observable conditions.
Tensions and trade-offs
- Independent QA reduces defects but depends on another person’s availability.
- Written control points create visibility but can add friction to smaller work.
PRACTICES
How Fleet builds its operating system
Independently test changes on QA Day
The maker does not QA their own change; two independent tests are required. The tester records steps in the issue and moves the work toward release readiness or back for rework.
- How it works
- The QA owner joins the issue; small failures become separate bugs, larger ones return work to In progress and notify the product group.
- Why it is used
- Makes test evidence independent from the change author and traceable.
- Trade-off
- Two separate tests and retesting can lengthen delivery.
- Best fit
- Product teams with capacity for independent pre-release verification.
Plan continuous flow from right to left
Product groups use continuous intake-to-release flow rather than sprint batches; weekly planning examines the board backwards from Ready for release and triages Inbox.
- How it works
- The planning rhythm is separate from the three-week release boundary; completed work enters the release queue.
- Why it is used
- Makes near-done work and bottlenecks visible before starting more.
- Trade-off
- Continuous flow depends on intake prioritization and board discipline.
- Best fit
- Product groups with continuous intake and regular releases.
Advance sales opportunities through written exit criteria
The sales handbook ties discovery and scope stages to a recorded use case, budget, dated next step and success criteria approved in writing by the prospect.
- How it works
- Stage conditions include probabilities and time windows; a demo alone does not qualify as completed discovery.
- Why it is used
- Replaces assumed sales progress with customer-confirmed context.
- Trade-off
- CRM fields and written prospect confirmation add work and waiting to the sales cycle.
- Best fit
- B2B sales teams with multi-stage technical discovery.
AI is expected, accountability stays human: read every line
Fleet expects engineers to use Claude Code in their daily workflow. In return, no AI-generated work (code, blog posts, handbook edits, customer emails) ships until both author and reviewer have read and understood it line by line; multiline product changes are run locally and the PR is opened from the person’s own GitHub account, not a bot.
- How it works
- AI output is treated as “cognitive debt”: the author pays it before opening the PR, the reviewer before approving. AI review tools (Copilot, CodeRabbit, Qodo, BugBunny) supplement human review but do not take over accountability.
- Why it is used
- When writing code gets cheap, the value of review is the guarantee that a human read and understood every line, not the findings; attributing the commit to a person keeps ownership.
- Trade-off
- Reading every line gives back part of the speed AI adds; the source defines no audit or metric showing the rule is followed.
- Best fit
- Software teams making AI use expected or widespread while keeping quality accountability with individuals.
Feature Fest: no backlog, only work that fits the next three-week release
Fleet accepts product requests continuously but keeps no feature backlog: a story is prioritized only if it can ship in the upcoming three-week release. Requests are decided at the Feature Fest meeting; a request not prioritized is treated as rejected for now and can be resubmitted. A request must meet at least one of four criteria: a small UX improvement, a company or product maturity goal, a “core” feature, or a “context” feature that one customer considers mission critical.
- How it works
- The feature-prioritization DRI weighs requests at Feature Fest, and the Head of Product Design triages new ones daily. Core features rank above context features; a context feature can jump ahead only if it is a customer promise or a P0–P2 customer request. The requester is told the decision; prioritized work is delivered or the requester hears about de-prioritization within one business day. Urgent requests can go straight to the Head of Product Design.
- Why it is used
- To avoid the false promises and staleness of a long backlog, and to give every request a quick, clear yes or “not now”.
- Trade-off
- The burden of resubmitting a rejected request falls on the requester, and work that does not fit three weeks has to be split to get in. Single-customer features only advance through the exception rule. The page shows no visible date and no measured outcome.
- Best fit
- Small product organizations with a short, fixed release cycle and a single named decision owner.