AI / ML · 2026
A 23-Agent AI Company
Parkzy is operated with a 23-seat AI organization: engineering seats, a board with a duty to dissent, and rituals engineered against sycophancy. It has produced 233 versioned PRDs. The agents propose — I decide.
The org chart
Twenty-three agent seats, each a written role definition with standing responsibilities: leadership (a chief-of-staff CEO seat that synthesizes into decision memos, plus a program manager), a five-seat board (market strategist, legal & risk, CFO, a wildcard — and a customer advocate, because the voice of drivers and hosts holds a board seat on purpose), eleven technical seats (frontend, backend, iOS, Android, UX, AI, DevOps, QA, data, security, and a collector whose whole job is making sure concerns never evaporate), trust & safety, and four marketing seats. Premium models take the judgment lanes; cheaper models take the scan-and-draft lanes.
The rituals
Weekly board meeting
Metrics get refreshed first, then six seats write positions independently — before a clash round where each seat must attack the most dangerous claim on the table. The CEO seat compresses it into a memo of at most three decisions, with dissent preserved verbatim.
Weekly engineering cycle
Twelve seats report evidence-backed concerns plus one mandatory challenge to another seat's work. A collector triages everything into a task board with a hard WIP cap of 10.
Marketing sprint
Every one to two weeks, the four marketing seats run the same propose-clash-decide loop on growth work.
The hard problem is sycophancy
A room full of agreeable AI agents is worse than useless — it launders your own biases back to you with confidence. So the mechanisms are the product: a duty to dissent written into the charter (“silence is a failed contribution”); independent-then-adversarial structure so positions form before they can converge; standing adversaries built into the seat definitions — the wildcard generates, the CFO finds the cheapest falsifying test; QA blocks, the CEO seat pushes ship-speed; trust & safety adds friction, the market strategist defends supply; evidence rules — no number without a source, and “unknown” is an acceptable answer, which kills the failure mode where confident agents out-argue correct ones; a dissent ledger where every decision carries a review-by date and seats earn credibility retroactively for dissents that proved right; and the collector guarantee — every raised concern lands on the board, in the backlog, or gets rejected in writing.
What it produces — and who decides
To date: 233 versioned PRDs, 35 dated decision memos, and shared state files (decision log, experiment queue, risk register, task board) that persist across sessions — the organization has memory. The boundary is explicit in the charter: no agent makes irreversible business decisions, spends money, or deploys to production on its own. Every seat advises, drafts, builds, or critiques; my cofounder and I make the calls. That's not a limitation of the system — it's the design. The interesting discovery after months of running it: the value isn't automation, it's structured disagreement on tap.