Collaborate
DoCoDeGo is an open-source framework built in public. There is no head-count plan, no recruiter funnel, no whiteboard. There is one operating principle: open work, done in the open, credited to whoever does it. Start small, go as deep as you like.
Committed and talented people who think in specs.
We collaborate with engineers, designers and operators who can see what is missing from a problem statement, not just what is there. People who hold a strong opinion under pressure and change it for the right reason. People who treat AI as a co-author with sharp boundaries — not a slot machine.
Contribution shows in how you reason, not where you have worked.
The collaboration is the framework.
We work the way we ship — one short loop, in writing, in the open.
Bring a problem you care about, or pick up one of ours. The work starts the moment you commit to a question worth answering.
Show your thinking in PR comments, spec drafts, or Discord threads. What counts here is judgement — not vocabulary, not credentials.
Ship a concrete artefact under your name: a spec, a tool, a pattern, a fix. Small is fine. Real is required.
We tell you what we saw — strengths, gaps, and what is worth doing next. Quickly, in writing, in either direction.
Early, and built in the open. We'll be straight about where things stand.
DoCoDeGo is still taking shape, and that is the point — the people here now help decide what it becomes. Here is the honest picture: the unfinished and the upside both.
It runs on conviction.
People are here because the problem is worth solving and the work compounds — theirs and ours. How that gets recognised grows as DoCoDeGo grows.
You would be early.
The shape of this is still forming. That is the cost and the opportunity — early contributors carry more ambiguity, and have the most room to grow with it.
No fixed role to slot into.
There is no job description waiting — there is open work, and room to grow into more. We figure out together which part is yours to own, and where it could lead.
Public credit and a straight answer.
Work you do here is credited on the docs and Discord. If we don't think it is a fit, we say so within 2 business days — not after a month of vague calls.
Pick the commitment that fits.
You can start in any track. People often move between them — Contribute first, Residency later, Maintainer once you have found the part of the framework you want to own.
Contribute
Open a PR, write a spec, file a pattern, add a glossary entry. Anything that compounds.
Open in DiscordResidency
Ship a defined piece of the framework under guidance — a tool, a spec set, a doc track. Mentored end to end, credited on docs and Discord.
Start in DiscordMaintainer
Take ownership of a part of the framework. Steward it, review others' work, and help shape where it goes next.
Start in DiscordAll three tracks accept email. We reply within 2 business days.
Across all three tracks.
- ▸ You write specs that are testable, not just descriptive.
- ▸ You can name what you would cut from your own work, not just what you would add.
- ▸ You think AI is a co-author, not a crutch — and you can show the difference.
- ▸ You would rather be honest than impressive.
No theatre. Just conversation.
Day 0 — You reach out
Discord or email — your choice. We reply within 2 business days.
Week 1–2 — We talk
One short call. We discuss a real problem we are working on right now. You'll know if it's interesting; we'll know if you think clearly.
After that — We ship something
A small spec, a tool, a PR — under your name. Or we agree it's not a fit. We say so clearly either way.
"DoCoDeGo is in Alpha. So is the team. If that energises you instead of worrying you, we should talk."
The framework is real.
The community is forming now.
DoCoDeGo is in Alpha. The framework is documented, the practices are battle-tested at small scale, and the next release is being shaped in public.
If it produces anything, it should produce engineers and teams who think more clearly about what they are building and why.
Discord is where specs are debated, the framework gets sharper, and decisions land in writing. The conversation is the artefact.