Software Engineer, AI Automation
for each section heading. Use - for any list of duties/requirements/benefits. Use
for prose. Remove boilerplate: EEO, equal opportunity, application instructions, cookie/navigation/legal etc. Also remove "Compensation Range: $224K - $300K" is pay info, we need a Pay section. Benefits section present.
We need to preserve all substantive information. Let's extract content.
About Fluidstack: paragraphs describing mission, etc. We'll put under heading "About the role"? Actually they said use headings like About the role, Responsibilities, Requirements, Qualifications, Skills, Benefits, Pay, Schedule. But we can also use other headings if appropriate? The instruction: "use
for section headings (e.g. About the role, Responsibilities, Requirements, Qualifications, Skills, Benefits, Pay, Schedule)." It suggests those are examples, but we should use those headings when applicable. However the posting doesn't have exactly those headings; we have sections like About Fluidstack, How We Operate, The Decision Team, Role Scope, What We're Looking For, Benefits, Compensation Range. We need to map to allowed headings? The instruction: "use for section headings (e.g. About the role, Responsibilities, Requirements, Qualifications, Skills, Benefits, Pay, Schedule)." It seems they expect us to use those standard headings, but we can also use other headings if they match content? It says "use for section headings (e.g. About the role, Responsibilities, Requirements, Qualifications, Skills, Benefits, Pay, Schedule)." That implies we should use those headings for sections. But we must include a section ONLY when the posting has real, specific content for it. So we need to decide which of those standard headings map to content.
We have content about company mission (About Fluidstack) - could map to "About the role"? Not exactly. But maybe we can treat "About the role" as company overview. Could be okay.
Responsibilities: Role Scope includes responsibilities. So we can put Role Scope under "Responsibilities". Requirements/Qualifications/Skills: What We're Looking For includes requirements, qualifications, skills, bonus. We could split into Requirements and Skills maybe. But we could just put all under "Requirements". However instruction: prefer a few substantive sections over many thin ones. So maybe combine Requirements and Skills into one section? But they said use headings like Requirements, Qualifications, Skills. We could have a single "Requirements" section containing both.
Benefits: we have Benefits section.
Pay: we have Compensation Range.
Schedule: not present, so omit.
We also have "How We Operate" and "The Decision Team" and "Role Scope" etc. Those could be considered part of Responsibilities or maybe separate sections like "About the team"? But not in list. However we must preserve all substantive information. If we omit those headings, we lose info. We could incorporate that info under Responsibilities or About the role. But we need to preserve detail. Could create sections with those headings even if not in the list? The instruction says use h3 for section headings (e.g. About the role, Responsibilities, Requirements, Qualifications, Skills, Benefits, Pay, Schedule). It doesn't forbid other headings, but suggests using those. Safer to stick to those headings and map content accordingly.
Thus we need to map:
- About the role: company description (About Fluidstack) + maybe How We Operate? Could be combined.
- Responsibilities: Role Scope (detailed responsibilities) plus maybe The Decision Team examples? Actually Decision Team examples are about problems the team works on, could be part of responsibilities.
- Requirements/Qualifications/Skills: What We're Looking For (including bonus). Could split into Requirements and Skills but we can combine.
- Benefits: Benefits paragraph.
- Pay: Compensation Range.
We must not include boilerplate: EEO, equal opportunity, application instructions, confirmation email etc. Also remove "We are committed to pay equity and transparency." That's maybe part of benefits? It's about pay equity, could be considered part of Pay? Might be considered boilerplate? It's not exactly EEO but still about pay equity. Might be okay to keep? The instruction: remove cookie/navigation/legal/EEO/equal-opportunity/scam-warning boilerplate. Pay equity statement could be considered EEO-related? It's about pay equity, but not exactly EEO. Might be safe to keep? I'd say it's not boilerplate; it's a statement about pay equity, could be relevant. But to be safe, maybe keep it as part of Pay section.
Also remove "Fluidstack is an Equal Employment Opportunity Employer..." etc. Remove that.
Also remove "You will receive a confirmation email..." etc.
Now craft HTML.
We need to output only HTML fragment, no /. Use headings,
for prose,
- for lists.
We need to identify lists: In Benefits: "Competitive total compensation package (cash + equity)Health, dental, and vision insuranceRetirement planGenerous PTO policy". That's a list; we can make
- each.
In What We're Looking For: bullet points? It's a paragraph with sentences separated by periods. Not explicit list but we could treat each sentence as list item? The instruction: Use
- for any list of duties/requirements/benefits. The posting doesn't have explicit list markers; but we could still treat as list if we see semicolons? Not needed. We'll keep as
paragraphs.
In Role Scope: many sentences describing responsibilities; could be list but not explicit. We'll keep as
maybe multiple paragraphs.
We need to preserve all substantive information; we can break into multiple
for readability.
Let's draft.
Section About the role: combine About Fluidstack and How We Operate.
Content:
About Fluidstack: "We exist to make humanity more free. For most of human history, you farmed or you starved. Technology gave people more time for the things they wanted to do, instead of things they had to do. Powerful AI will be the biggest lever for human choice we've ever built - but only if models are aligned with what humanity actually wants. There are groups building AI who don't share these goals. Whoever deploys frontier compute infrastructure fastest will decide whether AI expands human freedom or shrinks it. We're singularly focused on delivering 10 to 100s of GWs of compute faster than anyone else, rethinking every layer of the stack. We acquire power, design and build data centers, and operate them - with teams spanning hardware and software. Speed and scale are our key differentiators. Come be a part of building civilization-scale infrastructure for AI. We hire people who care deeply about this problem space. If that is you, please apply!"
How We Operate: "Be a barrel. Full autonomy. Own things end to end, take on scope without being asked, no permission required to operate outside your core role. Insane urgency. We drive everything forward as fast as possible. Reason from first principles. Challenge every assumption. Zero analogy thinking, no egos, the best idea wins. Love of the game. The frontier of AI is the most interesting problem of our time. We put in long hours at high intensity to push the frontier forward. Build something that actually matters. If you're going to spend your time, spend it on something that matters to the world."
We'll combine into a few paragraphs.
Responsibilities: Role Scope content.
Role Scope: "Build the hiring machine as software. Hiring is the company's biggest bottleneck. Every role, seat, and interview loop already lives in one graph, and you take it the rest of the way: the recruiting system synced both directions, interviewer supply and load visible to every hiring manager, and onboarding generated the moment an offer is signed, so day one starts with the job instead of the checklist. Build the cash view the company runs on: today no system derives near term spend, so finance forecasts by hand and misses what construction already committed. You turn purchase orders, contract terms, and build milestones into an order schedule, a cash demand curve by month, and a payment schedule that recompute as procurement and construction move. Build one capital pipeline from approved budget to released capital to spent dollar, gated on build milestones the delivery system already verifies, with the proof chain behind every financing drawdown assembled automatically, so releasing nine figures takes a day of judgment and funding follows construction within days. Parse every MSA, change order, and side letter into obligations, prices, deadlines, penalties, and SLAs, so a delivery lead gets what we owe a customer at a site with the clause attached, a change order arrives with its legal and finance checks done, and the corpus of executed deals prices the next negotiation. Embed forward-deployed with finance, treasury, accounting, legal, and people teams through a close, a drawdown, a negotiation, and a hiring loop, and turn their approvals, contract terms, screens, and reconciliations into structured data and generated work, including a continuous close where capitalization and depreciation post as events the moment they happen."
Also The Decision Team examples: "Examples of key problems the team is working on: Automate the delivery of gigawatts. Every process that takes AI infrastructure from land to live compute becomes software: schedules, decisions, and todos generated from a live knowledge graph instead of chased by hand. Forward-deploy beside the experts. Product teams sit with quality managers, sourcing leads, and deployment engineers on factory floors and sites, and turn their judgment into systems that reach every unit. Deliver every supercomputer faster than the last. Dozens of concurrent projects feed one graph, so every lesson learned at one site becomes a preventive check at all of them."
We can include that under Responsibilities as well.
Requirements/Qualifications/Skills: What We're Looking For content.
Let's extract:
"You've shipped production code in Go, Python, or TypeScript, and you pick up whatever language the problem demands.
You've built real features on LLM APIs (OpenAI, Anthropic, or open-weight models), MCP servers, and agentic frameworks.
You work daily with AI coding tools like Claude Code and Cursor, and you get agents doing useful work autonomously alongside you.
You identify problems, design the solution, and ship it without waiting for direction or approval.
You've moved fast under deadline while leaving foundations that other engineers extended after you moved on.
You've earned credibility with experts outside engineering: finance leads, lawyers, recruiters, or auditors, and driven adoption of your software inside their real deadlines, like a working close calendar or an offer that has to go out today.
Your product taste shows in what you've shipped: a controller, a recruiter, or a lawyer calls your interface obvious, and the workflow matches how their work actually happens.
Bonus: ERP and fixed asset accounting. FP&A, cash forecasting, and capital planning. Structured finance or treasury operations. Contract lifecycle systems. ATS and HRIS integrations (Ashby, Greenhouse, Rippling, Workday). LLM extraction over legal and financial documents."
We'll put as
maybe with line breaks.
Benefits: list.
"Competitive total compensation package (cash + equity)
Health, dental, and vision insurance
Retirement plan
Generous PTO policy"
Pay: "Compensation Range: $224K - $300K"
We might also include pay equity statement: "We are committed to pay equity and transparency." Could add as
under Pay.
Now produce HTML.
We'll have:
About the role
for prose. Remove boilerplate: EEO, equal opportunity, application instructions, cookie/navigation/legal etc. Also remove "Compensation Range: $224K - $300K" is pay info, we need a Pay section. Benefits section present. We need to preserve all substantive information. Let's extract content. About Fluidstack: paragraphs describing mission, etc. We'll put under heading "About the role"? Actually they said use headings like About the role, Responsibilities, Requirements, Qualifications, Skills, Benefits, Pay, Schedule. But we can also use other headings if appropriate? The instruction: "use
for section headings (e.g. About the role, Responsibilities, Requirements, Qualifications, Skills, Benefits, Pay, Schedule)." It suggests those are examples, but we should use those headings when applicable. However the posting doesn't have exactly those headings; we have sections like About Fluidstack, How We Operate, The Decision Team, Role Scope, What We're Looking For, Benefits, Compensation Range. We need to map to allowed headings? The instruction: "use for section headings (e.g. About the role, Responsibilities, Requirements, Qualifications, Skills, Benefits, Pay, Schedule)." It seems they expect us to use those standard headings, but we can also use other headings if they match content? It says "use for section headings (e.g. About the role, Responsibilities, Requirements, Qualifications, Skills, Benefits, Pay, Schedule)." That implies we should use those headings for sections. But we must include a section ONLY when the posting has real, specific content for it. So we need to decide which of those standard headings map to content.
We have content about company mission (About Fluidstack) - could map to "About the role"? Not exactly. But maybe we can treat "About the role" as company overview. Could be okay.
Responsibilities: Role Scope includes responsibilities. So we can put Role Scope under "Responsibilities". Requirements/Qualifications/Skills: What We're Looking For includes requirements, qualifications, skills, bonus. We could split into Requirements and Skills maybe. But we could just put all under "Requirements". However instruction: prefer a few substantive sections over many thin ones. So maybe combine Requirements and Skills into one section? But they said use headings like Requirements, Qualifications, Skills. We could have a single "Requirements" section containing both.
Benefits: we have Benefits section.
Pay: we have Compensation Range.
Schedule: not present, so omit.
We also have "How We Operate" and "The Decision Team" and "Role Scope" etc. Those could be considered part of Responsibilities or maybe separate sections like "About the team"? But not in list. However we must preserve all substantive information. If we omit those headings, we lose info. We could incorporate that info under Responsibilities or About the role. But we need to preserve detail. Could create sections with those headings even if not in the list? The instruction says use h3 for section headings (e.g. About the role, Responsibilities, Requirements, Qualifications, Skills, Benefits, Pay, Schedule). It doesn't forbid other headings, but suggests using those. Safer to stick to those headings and map content accordingly.
Thus we need to map:
- About the role: company description (About Fluidstack) + maybe How We Operate? Could be combined.
- Responsibilities: Role Scope (detailed responsibilities) plus maybe The Decision Team examples? Actually Decision Team examples are about problems the team works on, could be part of responsibilities.
- Requirements/Qualifications/Skills: What We're Looking For (including bonus). Could split into Requirements and Skills but we can combine.
- Benefits: Benefits paragraph.
- Pay: Compensation Range.
We must not include boilerplate: EEO, equal opportunity, application instructions, confirmation email etc. Also remove "We are committed to pay equity and transparency." That's maybe part of benefits? It's about pay equity, could be considered part of Pay? Might be considered boilerplate? It's not exactly EEO but still about pay equity. Might be okay to keep? The instruction: remove cookie/navigation/legal/EEO/equal-opportunity/scam-warning boilerplate. Pay equity statement could be considered EEO-related? It's about pay equity, but not exactly EEO. Might be safe to keep? I'd say it's not boilerplate; it's a statement about pay equity, could be relevant. But to be safe, maybe keep it as part of Pay section.
Also remove "Fluidstack is an Equal Employment Opportunity Employer..." etc. Remove that.
Also remove "You will receive a confirmation email..." etc.
Now craft HTML.
We need to output only HTML fragment, no /. Use headings,
for section headings (e.g. About the role, Responsibilities, Requirements, Qualifications, Skills, Benefits, Pay, Schedule)." That implies we should use those headings for sections. But we must include a section ONLY when the posting has real, specific content for it. So we need to decide which of those standard headings map to content.
We have content about company mission (About Fluidstack) - could map to "About the role"? Not exactly. But maybe we can treat "About the role" as company overview. Could be okay.
Responsibilities: Role Scope includes responsibilities. So we can put Role Scope under "Responsibilities". Requirements/Qualifications/Skills: What We're Looking For includes requirements, qualifications, skills, bonus. We could split into Requirements and Skills maybe. But we could just put all under "Requirements". However instruction: prefer a few substantive sections over many thin ones. So maybe combine Requirements and Skills into one section? But they said use headings like Requirements, Qualifications, Skills. We could have a single "Requirements" section containing both.
Benefits: we have Benefits section.
Pay: we have Compensation Range.
Schedule: not present, so omit.
We also have "How We Operate" and "The Decision Team" and "Role Scope" etc. Those could be considered part of Responsibilities or maybe separate sections like "About the team"? But not in list. However we must preserve all substantive information. If we omit those headings, we lose info. We could incorporate that info under Responsibilities or About the role. But we need to preserve detail. Could create sections with those headings even if not in the list? The instruction says use h3 for section headings (e.g. About the role, Responsibilities, Requirements, Qualifications, Skills, Benefits, Pay, Schedule). It doesn't forbid other headings, but suggests using those. Safer to stick to those headings and map content accordingly.
Thus we need to map:
- About the role: company description (About Fluidstack) + maybe How We Operate? Could be combined.
- Responsibilities: Role Scope (detailed responsibilities) plus maybe The Decision Team examples? Actually Decision Team examples are about problems the team works on, could be part of responsibilities.
- Requirements/Qualifications/Skills: What We're Looking For (including bonus). Could split into Requirements and Skills but we can combine.
- Benefits: Benefits paragraph.
- Pay: Compensation Range.
We must not include boilerplate: EEO, equal opportunity, application instructions, confirmation email etc. Also remove "We are committed to pay equity and transparency." That's maybe part of benefits? It's about pay equity, could be considered part of Pay? Might be considered boilerplate? It's not exactly EEO but still about pay equity. Might be okay to keep? The instruction: remove cookie/navigation/legal/EEO/equal-opportunity/scam-warning boilerplate. Pay equity statement could be considered EEO-related? It's about pay equity, but not exactly EEO. Might be safe to keep? I'd say it's not boilerplate; it's a statement about pay equity, could be relevant. But to be safe, maybe keep it as part of Pay section.
Also remove "Fluidstack is an Equal Employment Opportunity Employer..." etc. Remove that.
Also remove "You will receive a confirmation email..." etc.
Now craft HTML.
We need to output only HTML fragment, no /. Use headings,
for prose,
- for lists.
We need to identify lists: In Benefits: "Competitive total compensation package (cash + equity)Health, dental, and vision insuranceRetirement planGenerous PTO policy". That's a list; we can make
- each.
In What We're Looking For: bullet points? It's a paragraph with sentences separated by periods. Not explicit list but we could treat each sentence as list item? The instruction: Use
- for any list of duties/requirements/benefits. The posting doesn't have explicit list markers; but we could still treat as list if we see semicolons? Not needed. We'll keep as
paragraphs. In Role Scope: many sentences describing responsibilities; could be list but not explicit. We'll keep as
maybe multiple paragraphs. We need to preserve all substantive information; we can break into multiple
for readability. Let's draft. Section About the role: combine About Fluidstack and How We Operate. Content: About Fluidstack: "We exist to make humanity more free. For most of human history, you farmed or you starved. Technology gave people more time for the things they wanted to do, instead of things they had to do. Powerful AI will be the biggest lever for human choice we've ever built - but only if models are aligned with what humanity actually wants. There are groups building AI who don't share these goals. Whoever deploys frontier compute infrastructure fastest will decide whether AI expands human freedom or shrinks it. We're singularly focused on delivering 10 to 100s of GWs of compute faster than anyone else, rethinking every layer of the stack. We acquire power, design and build data centers, and operate them - with teams spanning hardware and software. Speed and scale are our key differentiators. Come be a part of building civilization-scale infrastructure for AI. We hire people who care deeply about this problem space. If that is you, please apply!" How We Operate: "Be a barrel. Full autonomy. Own things end to end, take on scope without being asked, no permission required to operate outside your core role. Insane urgency. We drive everything forward as fast as possible. Reason from first principles. Challenge every assumption. Zero analogy thinking, no egos, the best idea wins. Love of the game. The frontier of AI is the most interesting problem of our time. We put in long hours at high intensity to push the frontier forward. Build something that actually matters. If you're going to spend your time, spend it on something that matters to the world." We'll combine into a few paragraphs. Responsibilities: Role Scope content. Role Scope: "Build the hiring machine as software. Hiring is the company's biggest bottleneck. Every role, seat, and interview loop already lives in one graph, and you take it the rest of the way: the recruiting system synced both directions, interviewer supply and load visible to every hiring manager, and onboarding generated the moment an offer is signed, so day one starts with the job instead of the checklist. Build the cash view the company runs on: today no system derives near term spend, so finance forecasts by hand and misses what construction already committed. You turn purchase orders, contract terms, and build milestones into an order schedule, a cash demand curve by month, and a payment schedule that recompute as procurement and construction move. Build one capital pipeline from approved budget to released capital to spent dollar, gated on build milestones the delivery system already verifies, with the proof chain behind every financing drawdown assembled automatically, so releasing nine figures takes a day of judgment and funding follows construction within days. Parse every MSA, change order, and side letter into obligations, prices, deadlines, penalties, and SLAs, so a delivery lead gets what we owe a customer at a site with the clause attached, a change order arrives with its legal and finance checks done, and the corpus of executed deals prices the next negotiation. Embed forward-deployed with finance, treasury, accounting, legal, and people teams through a close, a drawdown, a negotiation, and a hiring loop, and turn their approvals, contract terms, screens, and reconciliations into structured data and generated work, including a continuous close where capitalization and depreciation post as events the moment they happen." Also The Decision Team examples: "Examples of key problems the team is working on: Automate the delivery of gigawatts. Every process that takes AI infrastructure from land to live compute becomes software: schedules, decisions, and todos generated from a live knowledge graph instead of chased by hand. Forward-deploy beside the experts. Product teams sit with quality managers, sourcing leads, and deployment engineers on factory floors and sites, and turn their judgment into systems that reach every unit. Deliver every supercomputer faster than the last. Dozens of concurrent projects feed one graph, so every lesson learned at one site becomes a preventive check at all of them." We can include that under Responsibilities as well. Requirements/Qualifications/Skills: What We're Looking For content. Let's extract: "You've shipped production code in Go, Python, or TypeScript, and you pick up whatever language the problem demands. You've built real features on LLM APIs (OpenAI, Anthropic, or open-weight models), MCP servers, and agentic frameworks. You work daily with AI coding tools like Claude Code and Cursor, and you get agents doing useful work autonomously alongside you. You identify problems, design the solution, and ship it without waiting for direction or approval. You've moved fast under deadline while leaving foundations that other engineers extended after you moved on. You've earned credibility with experts outside engineering: finance leads, lawyers, recruiters, or auditors, and driven adoption of your software inside their real deadlines, like a working close calendar or an offer that has to go out today. Your product taste shows in what you've shipped: a controller, a recruiter, or a lawyer calls your interface obvious, and the workflow matches how their work actually happens. Bonus: ERP and fixed asset accounting. FP&A, cash forecasting, and capital planning. Structured finance or treasury operations. Contract lifecycle systems. ATS and HRIS integrations (Ashby, Greenhouse, Rippling, Workday). LLM extraction over legal and financial documents." We'll put as
maybe with line breaks. Benefits: list. "Competitive total compensation package (cash + equity) Health, dental, and vision insurance Retirement plan Generous PTO policy" Pay: "Compensation Range: $224K - $300K" We might also include pay equity statement: "We are committed to pay equity and transparency." Could add as
under Pay. Now produce HTML. We'll have:
About the role
- for any list of duties/requirements/benefits. The posting doesn't have explicit list markers; but we could still treat as list if we see semicolons? Not needed. We'll keep as
- each.
In What We're Looking For: bullet points? It's a paragraph with sentences separated by periods. Not explicit list but we could treat each sentence as list item? The instruction: Use