Software Engineer 4 - AI Native
for sections like About the role, Responsibilities, Requirements, Qualifications, Skills, Benefits, Pay, Schedule. Only include sections where posting has real specific content.
We need to parse the job posting.
Key sections:
- Job Summary (maybe "About the role"? The instruction says use for section headings (e.g. About the role, Responsibilities, Requirements, Qualifications, Skills, Benefits, Pay, Schedule). So we can map content accordingly.
We have:
- Company description (intro) maybe not needed as heading? Could be part of About the role? But they said do NOT repeat the job title as a heading. The job title is not given explicitly but maybe "Senior Engineer, AI-native Software Development"? Not present. We'll ignore.
We need to extract:
- Job Summary: description of role, AI-native software development lifecycle, etc.
- Responsibilities: bullet list of "What Your Impact Will Look Like" items.
- Requirements: "You Will Love This Job If You Have Required" and "Preferred" etc.
- Qualifications: maybe same as Requirements? Could combine.
- Skills: maybe list of skills like data structures, systems design, testing, etc.
- Benefits: The Benefits section.
- Pay: Pay Range.
- Schedule: Not mentioned; maybe remote-first, flexible time off, but not explicit schedule. Probably no schedule section.
We must not include sections with filler like "commensurate with experience". Pay range is given, so include Pay.
Benefits: given.
Schedule: not given, so omit.
We need to preserve all substantive information, not invent or summarize away detail. Use - for any list of duties/requirements/benefits, and
for prose.
We must remove boilerplate: cookie/navigation/legal/EEO/equal-opportunity/scam-warning boilerplate, duplicated lines, and application instructions. Also remove "Want to know more? See more of what we do here ." etc. Also remove "About Us", "Security And Privacy Requirements", "The Team", "The Culture", "The Impact", "Equal Opportunity Employer" etc. Those are boilerplate? The instruction says remove cookie/navigation/legal/EEO/equal-opportunity/scam-warning boilerplate, duplicated lines, and application instructions. The "About Us", "Security And Privacy Requirements", "The Team", "The Culture", "The Impact", "Equal Opportunity Employer" might be considered boilerplate? Not sure. They said remove EEO/equal-opportunity boilerplate. So we should remove the Equal Opportunity Employer paragraph. Also "Security And Privacy Requirements" maybe not boilerplate but could be considered part of role? It's about responsibilities? Might be considered responsibilities? It says "Responsible for Granicus information security..." That's a responsibility. Could be included under Responsibilities. But we need to decide.
We also have "The Benefits" section which is substantive.
We need to preserve all substantive information; do not invent or summarize away detail. So we need to include the content from "The Benefits" exactly as given (maybe as list). Also include Pay Range.
We need to include "About Us"? Might be considered company description, not required but could be part of "About the role"? The instruction says include a section ONLY when the posting has real, specific content for it — never emit a heading followed by filler/placeholder text. The company description at start is substantive about Granicus. Could be placed under "About the role" or maybe a separate "About the company"? Not in allowed headings list. Allowed headings: About the role, Responsibilities, Requirements, Qualifications, Skills, Benefits, Pay, Schedule. So we can put company description under About the role.
Thus:
About the role
... company description + job summary ...
But we need to not duplicate content. Let's extract relevant prose for About the role: The initial paragraph about Granicus mission, plus Job Summary paragraph.
We need to preserve all substantive information; we can combine them into a single maybe multiple paragraphs? The instruction says use
for prose. Could have multiple
elements.
We'll produce:
About the role
The Company Serving the People Who Serve the People Granicus is driven by the excitement of building, implementing, and maintaining technology that is transforming the Govtech industry by bringing governments and its constituents together. We are on a mission to support our customers with meeting the needs of their communities and implementing our technology in ways that are equitable and inclusive. Granicus has consistently appeared on the GovTech 100 list over the past 5 years and has been recognized as the best companies to work on BuiltIn. Over the last 25 years, we have served 5,500 federal, state, and local government agencies and more than 300 million citizen subscribers power an unmatched Subscriber Network that use our digital solutions to make the world a better place. With comprehensive cloud-based solutions for communications, government website design, meeting and agenda management software, records management, and digital services, Granicus empowers stronger relationships between government and residents across the U.S., U.K., Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. By simplifying interactions with residents, while disseminating critical information, Granicus brings governments closer to the people they serve—driving meaningful change for communities around the globe.
Job Summary Granicus serves more than 7,000 public-sector agencies and powers approximately 30 billion digital interactions annually. Within the Office of the CTO, we operate an AI-native software development lifecycle: a production engineering model in which autonomous agents perform high-confidence implementation work and senior engineers orchestrate, review, and own the outcome. The model is established and operating; we are scaling it across additional delivery teams. This role joins one of those teams. Our engineering standards are calibrated to the practices used by leading software and AI organizations — generator-verifier architecture , eval-driven development , staged deployment , and high-volume autonomous pull-request pipelines — operated within a FedRAMP-authorized environment. We are hiring practitioners who will set and uphold these standards, not engineers who simply use AI tooling. Operating constraints (non-negotiable): agents execute only within branches; all agent-generated code passes senior human review before merging to production; autonomous execution is a force multiplier and does not transfer accountability away from the responsible engineer. Compliance obligations — NIST 800-53 Rev 5, WCAG, SOC 2, and applicable FedRAMP authorizations — are treated as engineering requirements and a source of competitive advantage.
Now Responsibilities: from "What Your Impact Will Look Like" bullet list.
List items:
- Direct the agent array on production workstreams — decompose problems into tasks suitable for agent execution, dispatch them, and integrate the output into shipped software.
- Review agent-generated pull requests at volume and at depth — identify correctness, security, and accessibility defects that automated tests do not catch, while maintaining review throughput and a consistent quality bar.
- Author evaluation suites that make quality measurable — define criteria under which the pipeline validates correctness rather than relying on subjective assessment.
- Eval-driven development is your standard practice.
- Own quality end to end — correctness, performance, security posture, and WCAG accessibility of the software your team ships, irrespective of which component or agent produced the initial implementation.
- Advance workstreams along the autonomy ladder on the basis of evidence — move work from supervised to autonomous execution when measured reliability supports it, and revert promptly when it does not.
- Strengthen the development lifecycle itself — identify where patterns, prompts, or pipeline components degrade at volume and work with the lead architect to remediate them.
- Maintain agent operations within the security boundary — branch-only execution, vaulted credentials, sandboxed actions, and in-VPC inference. Throughput does not justify exceptions.
Also there is a section "OWNERSHIP FROM DAY ONE" with bullet points:
- An active workstream directed through the agent array
- Agent pull-request review as a core, high-signal responsibility
- Evaluation suites authored and owned for your team’s deliverables
- End-to-end quality ownership within the FedRAMP-authorized environment
And "SCOPE YOU WILL GROW INTO" bullet points:
- Higher autonomy ratios substantiated by reliability data
- Reusable prompt and evaluation patterns adopted by other engineers
- Contribution to the lifecycle standards as a co-author, not only a user
- Mentorship of engineers transitioning to agent-directed delivery
These are also responsibilities or expectations. We'll include them under Responsibilities as list items.
We need to preserve all substantive information; we should not omit any.
Thus combine all bullet points into a - list.
Now Requirements: from "You Will Love This Job If You Have Required" and "Preferred" and "Indicators of a strong fit" and "Indicators this role is not a fit". We need to capture required and preferred qualifications.
Let's extract:
Required:
- Strong engineering fundamentals. Data structures, systems design, and testing, with the ability to read unfamiliar code quickly and assess it accurately.
- Agents amplify engineering judgment; they do not substitute for it.
- A record of shipping production software you owned the quality of, including responsibility for diagnosis and remediation when it failed .
- Hands-on experience directing coding agents on production work, including their failure modes and the practice of reviewing agent-generated code critically rather than approving it by default.
- Demonstrated code-review competence. You identify defects that automated tests do not catch, provide actionable feedback, and maintain a high bar without becoming a bottleneck.
- High autonomy. You advance work without step-by-step direction and escalate issues proactively.
Preferred:
- High-assurance or regulated experience. Shipping within FedRAMP, defense, financial services, healthcare, or another NIST 800-53 / SOC 2 / HIPAA-bound environment.
- Depth in evaluation authoring or test-first development within a rigorous engineering culture.
- Full-stack range, sufficient to review front-end and back-end agent output with equal confidence.
- Public-sector or govtech experience and familiarity with the relevant end users.
Indicators of a strong fit (these are more like traits):
- You deliver more effectively by directing multiple agents than by authoring code directly, while retaining a precise understanding of the intended implementation.
- You regard rigorous code review as a core engineering competency.
- You prefer to establish quality through evaluation suites rather than through discussion.
- You treat the agent array as leverage and reliably identify when its output is incorrect.
- You want to contribute to how engineering is practiced here, not only to apply new tooling .
Indicators this role is not a fit:
- You measure your contribution by lines of code personally authored. That metric does not apply in this model.
- You approve pull requests without thorough review under time pressure. At agent volume, this is the primary path by which defects reach production.
- You are uncomfortable owning quality for code you did not author. Ownership here is intentionally decoupled from authorship.
- You regard evaluation and compliance as impediments to shipping. You prefer narrowly scoped tickets and no involvement in how the system operates .
We could combine Required and Preferred into Requirements section, maybe separate Required and Preferred subheadings? But only allowed headings: Requirements, Qualifications, Skills. We could put Required under Requirements, Preferred under Qualifications, and Skills under Skills. Or we could combine all into Requirements. The instruction: "Use
for section headings (e.g. About the role, Responsibilities, Requirements, Qualifications, Skills, Benefits, Pay, Schedule)." So we can have multiple of those.
We need to decide mapping:
- Requirements: maybe the mandatory requirements.
- Qualifications: maybe the preferred qualifications.
- Skills: maybe specific skills like data structures, systems design, testing, code review, etc.
But we must not invent sections; we need real specific content for each.
We have content for Requirements (required). We have content for Qualifications (preferred). We have content for Skills (maybe list of skills like data structures, systems design, testing, code review, etc.) Could extract from required: "Strong engineering fundamentals. Data structures, systems design, and testing, with the ability to read unfamiliar code quickly and assess it
- for any list of duties/requirements/benefits, and
for prose. We must remove boilerplate: cookie/navigation/legal/EEO/equal-opportunity/scam-warning boilerplate, duplicated lines, and application instructions. Also remove "Want to know more? See more of what we do here ." etc. Also remove "About Us", "Security And Privacy Requirements", "The Team", "The Culture", "The Impact", "Equal Opportunity Employer" etc. Those are boilerplate? The instruction says remove cookie/navigation/legal/EEO/equal-opportunity/scam-warning boilerplate, duplicated lines, and application instructions. The "About Us", "Security And Privacy Requirements", "The Team", "The Culture", "The Impact", "Equal Opportunity Employer" might be considered boilerplate? Not sure. They said remove EEO/equal-opportunity boilerplate. So we should remove the Equal Opportunity Employer paragraph. Also "Security And Privacy Requirements" maybe not boilerplate but could be considered part of role? It's about responsibilities? Might be considered responsibilities? It says "Responsible for Granicus information security..." That's a responsibility. Could be included under Responsibilities. But we need to decide. We also have "The Benefits" section which is substantive. We need to preserve all substantive information; do not invent or summarize away detail. So we need to include the content from "The Benefits" exactly as given (maybe as list). Also include Pay Range. We need to include "About Us"? Might be considered company description, not required but could be part of "About the role"? The instruction says include a section ONLY when the posting has real, specific content for it — never emit a heading followed by filler/placeholder text. The company description at start is substantive about Granicus. Could be placed under "About the role" or maybe a separate "About the company"? Not in allowed headings list. Allowed headings: About the role, Responsibilities, Requirements, Qualifications, Skills, Benefits, Pay, Schedule. So we can put company description under About the role. Thus:
About the role
... company description + job summary ...
But we need to not duplicate content. Let's extract relevant prose for About the role: The initial paragraph about Granicus mission, plus Job Summary paragraph. We need to preserve all substantive information; we can combine them into a singlemaybe multiple paragraphs? The instruction says use
for prose. Could have multiple
elements. We'll produce:
About the role
The Company Serving the People Who Serve the People Granicus is driven by the excitement of building, implementing, and maintaining technology that is transforming the Govtech industry by bringing governments and its constituents together. We are on a mission to support our customers with meeting the needs of their communities and implementing our technology in ways that are equitable and inclusive. Granicus has consistently appeared on the GovTech 100 list over the past 5 years and has been recognized as the best companies to work on BuiltIn. Over the last 25 years, we have served 5,500 federal, state, and local government agencies and more than 300 million citizen subscribers power an unmatched Subscriber Network that use our digital solutions to make the world a better place. With comprehensive cloud-based solutions for communications, government website design, meeting and agenda management software, records management, and digital services, Granicus empowers stronger relationships between government and residents across the U.S., U.K., Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. By simplifying interactions with residents, while disseminating critical information, Granicus brings governments closer to the people they serve—driving meaningful change for communities around the globe.
Job Summary Granicus serves more than 7,000 public-sector agencies and powers approximately 30 billion digital interactions annually. Within the Office of the CTO, we operate an AI-native software development lifecycle: a production engineering model in which autonomous agents perform high-confidence implementation work and senior engineers orchestrate, review, and own the outcome. The model is established and operating; we are scaling it across additional delivery teams. This role joins one of those teams. Our engineering standards are calibrated to the practices used by leading software and AI organizations — generator-verifier architecture , eval-driven development , staged deployment , and high-volume autonomous pull-request pipelines — operated within a FedRAMP-authorized environment. We are hiring practitioners who will set and uphold these standards, not engineers who simply use AI tooling. Operating constraints (non-negotiable): agents execute only within branches; all agent-generated code passes senior human review before merging to production; autonomous execution is a force multiplier and does not transfer accountability away from the responsible engineer. Compliance obligations — NIST 800-53 Rev 5, WCAG, SOC 2, and applicable FedRAMP authorizations — are treated as engineering requirements and a source of competitive advantage.
Now Responsibilities: from "What Your Impact Will Look Like" bullet list. List items: - Direct the agent array on production workstreams — decompose problems into tasks suitable for agent execution, dispatch them, and integrate the output into shipped software. - Review agent-generated pull requests at volume and at depth — identify correctness, security, and accessibility defects that automated tests do not catch, while maintaining review throughput and a consistent quality bar. - Author evaluation suites that make quality measurable — define criteria under which the pipeline validates correctness rather than relying on subjective assessment. - Eval-driven development is your standard practice. - Own quality end to end — correctness, performance, security posture, and WCAG accessibility of the software your team ships, irrespective of which component or agent produced the initial implementation. - Advance workstreams along the autonomy ladder on the basis of evidence — move work from supervised to autonomous execution when measured reliability supports it, and revert promptly when it does not. - Strengthen the development lifecycle itself — identify where patterns, prompts, or pipeline components degrade at volume and work with the lead architect to remediate them. - Maintain agent operations within the security boundary — branch-only execution, vaulted credentials, sandboxed actions, and in-VPC inference. Throughput does not justify exceptions. Also there is a section "OWNERSHIP FROM DAY ONE" with bullet points: - An active workstream directed through the agent array - Agent pull-request review as a core, high-signal responsibility - Evaluation suites authored and owned for your team’s deliverables - End-to-end quality ownership within the FedRAMP-authorized environment And "SCOPE YOU WILL GROW INTO" bullet points: - Higher autonomy ratios substantiated by reliability data - Reusable prompt and evaluation patterns adopted by other engineers - Contribution to the lifecycle standards as a co-author, not only a user - Mentorship of engineers transitioning to agent-directed delivery These are also responsibilities or expectations. We'll include them under Responsibilities as list items. We need to preserve all substantive information; we should not omit any. Thus combine all bullet points into a- list.
Now Requirements: from "You Will Love This Job If You Have Required" and "Preferred" and "Indicators of a strong fit" and "Indicators this role is not a fit". We need to capture required and preferred qualifications.
Let's extract:
Required:
- Strong engineering fundamentals. Data structures, systems design, and testing, with the ability to read unfamiliar code quickly and assess it accurately.
- Agents amplify engineering judgment; they do not substitute for it.
- A record of shipping production software you owned the quality of, including responsibility for diagnosis and remediation when it failed .
- Hands-on experience directing coding agents on production work, including their failure modes and the practice of reviewing agent-generated code critically rather than approving it by default.
- Demonstrated code-review competence. You identify defects that automated tests do not catch, provide actionable feedback, and maintain a high bar without becoming a bottleneck.
- High autonomy. You advance work without step-by-step direction and escalate issues proactively.
Preferred:
- High-assurance or regulated experience. Shipping within FedRAMP, defense, financial services, healthcare, or another NIST 800-53 / SOC 2 / HIPAA-bound environment.
- Depth in evaluation authoring or test-first development within a rigorous engineering culture.
- Full-stack range, sufficient to review front-end and back-end agent output with equal confidence.
- Public-sector or govtech experience and familiarity with the relevant end users.
Indicators of a strong fit (these are more like traits):
- You deliver more effectively by directing multiple agents than by authoring code directly, while retaining a precise understanding of the intended implementation.
- You regard rigorous code review as a core engineering competency.
- You prefer to establish quality through evaluation suites rather than through discussion.
- You treat the agent array as leverage and reliably identify when its output is incorrect.
- You want to contribute to how engineering is practiced here, not only to apply new tooling .
Indicators this role is not a fit:
- You measure your contribution by lines of code personally authored. That metric does not apply in this model.
- You approve pull requests without thorough review under time pressure. At agent volume, this is the primary path by which defects reach production.
- You are uncomfortable owning quality for code you did not author. Ownership here is intentionally decoupled from authorship.
- You regard evaluation and compliance as impediments to shipping. You prefer narrowly scoped tickets and no involvement in how the system operates .
We could combine Required and Preferred into Requirements section, maybe separate Required and Preferred subheadings? But only allowed headings: Requirements, Qualifications, Skills. We could put Required under Requirements, Preferred under Qualifications, and Skills under Skills. Or we could combine all into Requirements. The instruction: "Use
for section headings (e.g. About the role, Responsibilities, Requirements, Qualifications, Skills, Benefits, Pay, Schedule)." So we can have multiple of those. We need to decide mapping: - Requirements: maybe the mandatory requirements. - Qualifications: maybe the preferred qualifications. - Skills: maybe specific skills like data structures, systems design, testing, code review, etc. But we must not invent sections; we need real specific content for each. We have content for Requirements (required). We have content for Qualifications (preferred). We have content for Skills (maybe list of skills like data structures, systems design, testing, code review, etc.) Could extract from required: "Strong engineering fundamentals. Data structures, systems design, and testing, with the ability to read unfamiliar code quickly and assess it
- list.
Now Requirements: from "You Will Love This Job If You Have Required" and "Preferred" and "Indicators of a strong fit" and "Indicators this role is not a fit". We need to capture required and preferred qualifications.
Let's extract:
Required:
- Strong engineering fundamentals. Data structures, systems design, and testing, with the ability to read unfamiliar code quickly and assess it accurately.
- Agents amplify engineering judgment; they do not substitute for it.
- A record of shipping production software you owned the quality of, including responsibility for diagnosis and remediation when it failed .
- Hands-on experience directing coding agents on production work, including their failure modes and the practice of reviewing agent-generated code critically rather than approving it by default.
- Demonstrated code-review competence. You identify defects that automated tests do not catch, provide actionable feedback, and maintain a high bar without becoming a bottleneck.
- High autonomy. You advance work without step-by-step direction and escalate issues proactively.
Preferred:
- High-assurance or regulated experience. Shipping within FedRAMP, defense, financial services, healthcare, or another NIST 800-53 / SOC 2 / HIPAA-bound environment.
- Depth in evaluation authoring or test-first development within a rigorous engineering culture.
- Full-stack range, sufficient to review front-end and back-end agent output with equal confidence.
- Public-sector or govtech experience and familiarity with the relevant end users.
Indicators of a strong fit (these are more like traits):
- You deliver more effectively by directing multiple agents than by authoring code directly, while retaining a precise understanding of the intended implementation.
- You regard rigorous code review as a core engineering competency.
- You prefer to establish quality through evaluation suites rather than through discussion.
- You treat the agent array as leverage and reliably identify when its output is incorrect.
- You want to contribute to how engineering is practiced here, not only to apply new tooling .
Indicators this role is not a fit:
- You measure your contribution by lines of code personally authored. That metric does not apply in this model.
- You approve pull requests without thorough review under time pressure. At agent volume, this is the primary path by which defects reach production.
- You are uncomfortable owning quality for code you did not author. Ownership here is intentionally decoupled from authorship.
- You regard evaluation and compliance as impediments to shipping. You prefer narrowly scoped tickets and no involvement in how the system operates .
We could combine Required and Preferred into Requirements section, maybe separate Required and Preferred subheadings? But only allowed headings: Requirements, Qualifications, Skills. We could put Required under Requirements, Preferred under Qualifications, and Skills under Skills. Or we could combine all into Requirements. The instruction: "Use