Senior Engineering Manager, Financial Data, Reporting & Analytics
Athelas · San Francisco, CA · 3 wk ago
HybridAccounting$240k–$275k/yrFull-time
We need to output HTML fragment with sections: About the role, Responsibilities, Requirements, Qualifications, Skills, Benefits, Pay, Schedule. Only include sections that have real specific content. We must not repeat job title. No Job ID. Remove boilerplate like EEO, legal, etc. Also remove application instructions. We need to preserve substantive info.
Let's parse the posting.
First paragraph: description of company, mission. That's about the company, not about the role. Could be part of "About the role"? Actually "About The Role" heading appears later. The initial description is about Commure. Could be considered "About the role"? Usually "About the role" includes description of role and maybe company context. The instruction: use for section headings (e.g. About the role, Responsibilities, Requirements, Qualifications, Skills, Benefits, Pay, Schedule). So we need to create sections accordingly.
We have content:
- About The Role: after that heading, there is description: "We're hiring a Senior Engineering Manager for the team that owns the financial core of our revenue cycle product. That's three things: the ledger that records every financial event, the reports that billing managers and CFOs close their books on, and the analytics that tell a practice how it's doing. You'll manage 6 to 8 engineers, from early-career to Senior Staff, own the roadmap with your product partner, and be accountable for financial correctness across the platform. We're partway through rebuilding this surface: moving a decade of report logic onto a drift-free ledger and a modern OLAP layer, while customers keep closing their books on the old one."
That is about the role.
Then "What You'll Do" bullet list (actually paragraphs). That is responsibilities.
Then "What You Have" bullet list (requirements/qualifications). Then "Nice to Have" (preferred qualifications). Then "Compensation Range: $240K - $275K". That's pay.
We also have some other info: "Please be aware that all official communication from us will come exclusively from email addresses ending in @commure.com..." That's boilerplate/security, remove.
Also earlier: "Our team works directly alongside clinicians..." that's company description, maybe part of About the role? Could be included in About the role section as context. But we need to preserve all substantive information. The company description is substantive but not about role. However we have no section for "About the company". The instruction only lists certain headings; we could put company description under About the role or maybe under a generic "About the company" but not allowed? The instruction says use
for section headings (e.g. About the role, Responsibilities, Requirements, Qualifications, Skills, Benefits, Pay, Schedule). So we need to create sections accordingly.
We have content:
- About The Role: after that heading, there is description: "We're hiring a Senior Engineering Manager for the team that owns the financial core of our revenue cycle product. That's three things: the ledger that records every financial event, the reports that billing managers and CFOs close their books on, and the analytics that tell a practice how it's doing. You'll manage 6 to 8 engineers, from early-career to Senior Staff, own the roadmap with your product partner, and be accountable for financial correctness across the platform. We're partway through rebuilding this surface: moving a decade of report logic onto a drift-free ledger and a modern OLAP layer, while customers keep closing their books on the old one."
That is about the role.
Then "What You'll Do" bullet list (actually paragraphs). That is responsibilities.
Then "What You Have" bullet list (requirements/qualifications). Then "Nice to Have" (preferred qualifications). Then "Compensation Range: $240K - $275K". That's pay.
We also have some other info: "Please be aware that all official communication from us will come exclusively from email addresses ending in @commure.com..." That's boilerplate/security, remove.
Also earlier: "Our team works directly alongside clinicians..." that's company description, maybe part of About the role? Could be included in About the role section as context. But we need to preserve all substantive information. The company description is substantive but not about role. However we have no section for "About the company". The instruction only lists certain headings; we could put company description under About the role or maybe under a generic "About the company" but not allowed? The instruction says use for section headings (e.g. About the role, Responsibilities, Requirements, Qualifications, Skills, Benefits, Pay, Schedule). It doesn't forbid other headings, but says "Use for section headings (e.g. About the role, Responsibilities, Requirements, Qualifications, Skills, Benefits, Pay, Schedule)." It implies we should use those headings when appropriate. We could add an "About the company" section if needed, but not in the list. Safer to stick to those headings. We can incorporate company description into About the role section as introductory context.
We must not include sections with filler like "commensurate with experience". We have Pay: $240K - $275K, that's specific, so include Pay section.
Schedule: not mentioned, so omit.
Benefits: not mentioned explicitly; there is no benefits description. So omit Benefits.
Skills: maybe we can extract from requirements? But we have Qualifications and Requirements sections. The instruction includes Skills as a possible heading. We could put technical skills under Skills. But we have "What You Have" which includes experience managing engineers, shipped financial/reporting/data-intensive systems, backend and data fluency, etc. That's qualifications. Could treat as Requirements. Also "Nice to Have" as Qualifications (preferred). We'll need to decide mapping.
We have sections: About the role, Responsibilities, Requirements, Qualifications, Skills, Benefits, Pay, Schedule.
We need to avoid duplication. Let's map:
- About the role: company + role description.
- Responsibilities: "What You'll Do" bullet points.
- Requirements: mandatory qualifications from "What You Have". Could be split into Requirements (hard) and Qualifications (maybe same). But we have both headings; we could put mandatory under Requirements, and nice-to-have under Qualifications. Or we could put all under Requirements and leave Qualifications empty (but we must not emit empty sections). So we need to put something under Qualifications if we use it. Let's put mandatory under Requirements, nice-to-have under Qualifications.
- Skills: maybe we can extract specific technical skills: backend and data fluency, query plan review, ledger design, debug parity failure, OLAP stores (StarRocks, ClickHouse, Druid), PostgreSQL, double-entry accounting, append-only ledgers, audit-trail, LLM features, AI report builder, etc. Could be under Skills.
But we must not invent details. We can list those as skills.
Let's extract from "What You Have":
- 5+ years managing software engineers, including senior and staff-level ICs.
- You've grown engineers into leads and staff engineers, and you can name them.
- You've shipped financial, reporting, or data-intensive systems in production where the numbers had to tie.
- You know how a report can be technically correct and still wrong to the person reading it.
- Backend and data fluency. You can review a query plan, push back on a ledger design, and debug a parity failure yourself.
- Staff engineers will take you seriously because you engage with the substance.
- You've set direction for a product surface and can say what it should look like in 12 months.
- You're comfortable across the table from a CFO explaining why a number moved.
- Operational discipline: on-call, SLOs, and monitoring for correctness as well as availability.
- You move fast on incomplete information and reset timelines honestly when the work turns out bigger than expected.
Nice to Have:
- Healthcare RCM, billing, practice management, or clearinghouse background.
- Or fintech experience with ledgers, close automation, or reconciliation (BlackLine, FloQast, Numeric, Stripe, Modern Treasury).
- OLAP stores (StarRocks, ClickHouse, Druid) run alongside PostgreSQL.
- Double-entry accounting, append-only ledgers, or audit-trail requirements.
- Leading a platform re-architecture while keeping the existing system shipping.
- Shipping LLM features to production.
- We run an AI report builder that handles thousands of custom reporting requests.
Thus we can map:
Requirements (mandatory): the bullet points under "What You Have".
Qualifications (nice-to-have): the bullet points under "Nice to Have".
Skills: maybe we can extract technical skills like "backend and data fluency, query plan review, ledger design, parity failure debugging, OLAP stores (StarRocks, ClickHouse, Druid), PostgreSQL, double-entry accounting, append-only ledgers, audit-trail, LLM features, AI report builder". But some of those are already in nice-to-have. Could still list under Skills.
But we must avoid duplication? Not prohibited but better to avoid repeating same content. Could put skills as a summary of technical abilities.
Let's decide:
- About the role: include company description and role overview.
- Responsibilities: list from "What You'll Do".
- Requirements: list from "What You Have".
- Qualifications: list from "Nice to Have".
- Skills: maybe we can combine some technical skills not covered elsewhere? But we already covered many in Requirements and Qualifications. Could still include a Skills section highlighting "Backend and data fluency, OLAP, double-entry accounting, LLM features". However that may duplicate. The instruction says prefer a few substantive sections over many thin ones. So maybe we can omit Skills if its content overlaps heavily. But we need to include sections only when posting has real specific content for it. If we think Skills content is already covered, we could omit Skills. However the instruction gave Skills as an example heading; we are not required to include it. So we can omit if no distinct content.
Thus we will have sections: About the role, Responsibilities, Requirements, Qualifications, Pay.
Check for Benefits: none. Schedule: none.
Now we need to format.
Use for each section heading.
Under each heading, use
for section headings (e.g. About the role, Responsibilities, Requirements, Qualifications, Skills, Benefits, Pay, Schedule)." It implies we should use those headings when appropriate. We could add an "About the company" section if needed, but not in the list. Safer to stick to those headings. We can incorporate company description into About the role section as introductory context.
We must not include sections with filler like "commensurate with experience". We have Pay: $240K - $275K, that's specific, so include Pay section.
Schedule: not mentioned, so omit.
Benefits: not mentioned explicitly; there is no benefits description. So omit Benefits.
Skills: maybe we can extract from requirements? But we have Qualifications and Requirements sections. The instruction includes Skills as a possible heading. We could put technical skills under Skills. But we have "What You Have" which includes experience managing engineers, shipped financial/reporting/data-intensive systems, backend and data fluency, etc. That's qualifications. Could treat as Requirements. Also "Nice to Have" as Qualifications (preferred). We'll need to decide mapping.
We have sections: About the role, Responsibilities, Requirements, Qualifications, Skills, Benefits, Pay, Schedule.
We need to avoid duplication. Let's map:
- About the role: company + role description.
- Responsibilities: "What You'll Do" bullet points.
- Requirements: mandatory qualifications from "What You Have". Could be split into Requirements (hard) and Qualifications (maybe same). But we have both headings; we could put mandatory under Requirements, and nice-to-have under Qualifications. Or we could put all under Requirements and leave Qualifications empty (but we must not emit empty sections). So we need to put something under Qualifications if we use it. Let's put mandatory under Requirements, nice-to-have under Qualifications.
- Skills: maybe we can extract specific technical skills: backend and data fluency, query plan review, ledger design, debug parity failure, OLAP stores (StarRocks, ClickHouse, Druid), PostgreSQL, double-entry accounting, append-only ledgers, audit-trail, LLM features, AI report builder, etc. Could be under Skills.
But we must not invent details. We can list those as skills.
Let's extract from "What You Have":
- 5+ years managing software engineers, including senior and staff-level ICs.
- You've grown engineers into leads and staff engineers, and you can name them.
- You've shipped financial, reporting, or data-intensive systems in production where the numbers had to tie.
- You know how a report can be technically correct and still wrong to the person reading it.
- Backend and data fluency. You can review a query plan, push back on a ledger design, and debug a parity failure yourself.
- Staff engineers will take you seriously because you engage with the substance.
- You've set direction for a product surface and can say what it should look like in 12 months.
- You're comfortable across the table from a CFO explaining why a number moved.
- Operational discipline: on-call, SLOs, and monitoring for correctness as well as availability.
- You move fast on incomplete information and reset timelines honestly when the work turns out bigger than expected.
Nice to Have:
- Healthcare RCM, billing, practice management, or clearinghouse background.
- Or fintech experience with ledgers, close automation, or reconciliation (BlackLine, FloQast, Numeric, Stripe, Modern Treasury).
- OLAP stores (StarRocks, ClickHouse, Druid) run alongside PostgreSQL.
- Double-entry accounting, append-only ledgers, or audit-trail requirements.
- Leading a platform re-architecture while keeping the existing system shipping.
- Shipping LLM features to production.
- We run an AI report builder that handles thousands of custom reporting requests.
Thus we can map:
Requirements (mandatory): the bullet points under "What You Have".
Qualifications (nice-to-have): the bullet points under "Nice to Have".
Skills: maybe we can extract technical skills like "backend and data fluency, query plan review, ledger design, parity failure debugging, OLAP stores (StarRocks, ClickHouse, Druid), PostgreSQL, double-entry accounting, append-only ledgers, audit-trail, LLM features, AI report builder". But some of those are already in nice-to-have. Could still list under Skills.
But we must avoid duplication? Not prohibited but better to avoid repeating same content. Could put skills as a summary of technical abilities.
Let's decide:
- About the role: include company description and role overview.
- Responsibilities: list from "What You'll Do".
- Requirements: list from "What You Have".
- Qualifications: list from "Nice to Have".
- Skills: maybe we can combine some technical skills not covered elsewhere? But we already covered many in Requirements and Qualifications. Could still include a Skills section highlighting "Backend and data fluency, OLAP, double-entry accounting, LLM features". However that may duplicate. The instruction says prefer a few substantive sections over many thin ones. So maybe we can omit Skills if its content overlaps heavily. But we need to include sections only when posting has real specific content for it. If we think Skills content is already covered, we could omit Skills. However the instruction gave Skills as an example heading; we are not required to include it. So we can omit if no distinct content.
Thus we will have sections: About the role, Responsibilities, Requirements, Qualifications, Pay.
Check for Benefits: none. Schedule: none.
Now we need to format.
Use for each section heading.
Under each heading, use
for prose,
- for lists. We need to preserve all substantive information; do not invent or summarize away detail. We must not include boilerplate like "Please be aware that all official communication..." etc. Also remove duplicated lines. Let's craft About the role section: We need to include the initial company description: "At Commure, we're building the AI Operating System for healthcare, the foundation that defines how care is delivered, documented, and financed. Our platform spans the full care journey: Ambient AI and Dictation eliminating documentation burden at the point of care, intelligent Agents automating patient and revenue workflows, and autonomous RCM processing billions in claims, all on a single AI-native platform integrated with 60+ EHRs. Healthcare carries a $1 trillion administrative burden and we're at the center of transforming it. Today, 500,000+ clinicians across 500+ healthcare organizations nationwide trust Commure to handle $25B+ in annual claims and support over 200 million patient interactions. Our latest $70M raise at a $7B valuation reflects the confidence the market has placed in this mission. We've also been named to the Fortune Future 50 list and the 2026 AI Breakthrough Awards for “Overall NLP Company of the Year.” Our team works directly alongside clinicians, not through layers of process, which means the gap between what you build and its impact on patient care is immediate. We move fast, deploy daily, and take full ownership from early thinking to production. If you're energized by hard problems, high stakes, and a team that holds itself to a high bar, you'll find your people here. The future of healthcare is being built right now. Come deliver this transformation." Then the "About The Role" paragraph: "We're hiring a Senior Engineering Manager for the team that owns the financial core of our revenue cycle product. That's three things: the ledger that records every financial event, the reports that billing managers and CFOs close their books on, and the analytics that tell a practice how it's doing. You'll manage 6 to 8 engineers, from early-career to Senior Staff, own the roadmap with your product partner, and be accountable for financial correctness across the platform. We're partway through rebuilding this surface: moving a decade of report logic onto a drift-free ledger and a modern OLAP layer, while customers keep closing their books on the old one." We can combine them into About the role section. Now Responsibilities: from "What You'll Do". It includes multiple paragraphs each starting with a bold phrase? Actually the text: "What You'll Do Manage and grow a team of 6 to 8 engineers. Hiring, performance, career growth. Build people who can each run a customer escalation, a data migration, or an incident end-to-end without you in the room. Set the roadmap with your product partner. The goal is to get from building whatever report a customer asked for to customers building their own reports and closing their books without us involved. Own financial correctness. For this team, wrong numbers are a worse failure than a slow page. You'll own the systems that catch silent errors: shadow parity harnesses, cross-report tie-out checks, drift monitoring, and correctness SLOs next to the uptime ones. Lead multi-quarter migrations (ledger report migration, OLAP golden views) incrementally, with parity checks at each step, without breaking anyone's close. Own the customer relationship at the top of the stack. Sit with comptrollers, CFOs, and RCM directors at our largest sites during month-end. Turn their definition of "correct" into software, and turn recurring escalations into roadmap. Run cross-team execution with the payments/posting team, data