ramraj07

Komodo Health | Principal Product Manager, AI Products | Full-Time | $213k-$288k + equity... | SF/NYC On-site / Remote US

Healthcare in the U.S. is a mess, and most of the data that could help is locked in places nobody can use. Komodo has mapped the patient journey across the country: diagnoses, treatments, providers, payers. Our customers are pharma companies, payers and health systems that want to act on that picture.

We're building the platform that puts it in their hands. There's an AI analyst that works across the whole map. There are apps that turn a population described in plain English into a full report in seconds, and tools that let analysts open, check and rerun the code behind every answer. Underneath all of it is a single query engine that every app and agent shares, so a new product is weeks of work instead of quarters.

Building has gotten cheap. Deciding what to build is the hard part now, and that's the job. We want product managers who:

  • Have shipped data, analytics or developer products that people use every day

  • Prototype things themselves with AI coding tools, and would rather show a working version than write a spec

  • Can sit with a customer, find the problem underneath the request, and say no to the rest

  • Write clearly and briefly
  Healthcare experience helps, but it isn't required. Curiosity about how the system actually works is.

Small team, real customers, and more leverage per person than I've seen anywhere.

If that sounds like you, email our head of product at kaushal.parikh@komodohealth.com Or me at ramraj.velmurugan@komodohealth.com

Please include the keyword from my HN profile in the subject of the email!

I have done something similar on a larger repo on claude code max and it didnt even fully exhaust the 5 hour limit.

DSPy never made full sense even back then in the somnet 3.5 era and it makes no sense today. Not a gut reaction but pure evals (we have had teams create the same agents using dspy, langgraph compete with pure agent loops and the agent loops come across as so much better by a wide margin). Its the people who insist on these procedural ideas that need to prove with data or money in revenue that these archaic ideas make any sense to consider.

Incidentally the teams and people who think dspy is great are also generally the worse teams that can never make a lovable product so take from that what you want.

Ive anecdotally heard that openai is far more chaotic, which includes not having a central infra team for example (or at least some teams not counting on depending on them). At least the previous hacks in openai were mainly due to bad infra architecture design.

Creating deep research multiagent systems without explicitly handing it a file system is a terrible idea. The only successful way we have found to reliably hand off context in multiagent systems is using a file system. Langchain even today doesnt make that default or even encourage it.

Theres more than words in our minds. Think harder are you absolutely sure? You REASON with words but your ideas dont form just from you reasoning. The ideas just seem to come out of nowhere to the part of your brain that then reasons around them.

Because many people (especially in HN) seem to reject allowing nature and capitalism take its course.

It (and most other systems) abstract the wrong concepts when you want to create an agent. They promote what was likely never a great strategy but even parsimoniously what are strategies that were good ideas months or a year back.

For example how langchain or whatever else handles subagents and deep research is laughable even today.

So whats the recommendation? Just use pydantic and code everything up yourself. Maybe strands I dont know.

By all indications Chris Cornell likely tried to paint some poignantly depressing mindset with that lyric, so its doubly ironic the universe is choke full of it. Or at least was.

The largest supermassive blackholes have an average density less than earth's atm as well.

So basically "icing a rolex"? Theres premium and then theres tacky.

You dont seem to understand why people buy the most expensive phones. Most of the time (especially outside tech circles) its a show of wealth.

In a lot of ways the iphone has always been the Achilles Heel of the ultra wealthy, no matter how many billions you had, you could never do fancier than a 1500 buck iphone. Apple IMO is just trying to capitalize on this phenomenon and capture the pretentious luxury market. Anecdotally the galaxy fold did really well with the obnoxiously rich circles in my country, people who previously all had iphones. So they kinda have to do it as well now.

Seems to be it, though Im not particularly concerned about this problem personally.

The fact that we all readily accept that modern AI systems can likely solve any math problem that no living genius can, tells me that no task is beyond this system we just need the right harness around it. The exhaustion of meaningful math problems to motivate mathematicians minds seems to be the least of my worries at that point.

Inb4 someone suggests that this is not proof that these AIs generalize, I agree thats a popular opinion, but both sides are merely that, with no possible way to prove. I will wallow in my existential dread while you do whatever it is that gives you comfort.

Even with all of this nuance why would the regular joe go to muse when they have chatgpt and gemini? Most of their actual productive data is likely with Google anyway.

My understanding is that even if you opt out but then press thumbs down or give other feedback you are implicitly or explicitly or whatever giving permission to them to look at that chat alone.

Im now fascinated by how exactly Bcherny generated that message using claude. Like is the entire issue resolution automated, or still guided in someway?

Pretty sure claude code already delegates reading a large codebase to haiku subagents.

At least last year most agents wrote materially worse code in htmx.

If your coding agent screwed up so bad that wrong data is being shown to the user, in August 2026, thats more on the prompter than anything else.

They use a method called propensity score matching to try their best to match patients on both sides using a simple linear model with various features that try to ensure that only pairs of closely matched patient histories are compared.

Unfortunately this is rarely clean. Its also easy to make mistakes. Sometimes two arms are fundamentally incomparable. The quality and rigor of the comparison is often determined by a lot of extra checks and validations, and different journals demand different levels of rigor. I need to read it carefully to judge if this is good or not.

Should we call this a cargo cult

Do you understand the difference between pulsar and Kafka

I always thought Im just not good enough to understand, hey Im just too dumb, surely there's people out there who understand what differentiates all these apache products! Nope never found one.

Dan isn't necessarily Bertrand Russell so ill give him a pass for not using the perfect word in every place.

But this article is in my opinion one of the best attempts at explaining a fundamental problem in software product work that has never (in my experience) been laid out this well. I will implore you to finish it.

No idea what your problem is but this is categorically false. CC broke tmux when they briefly tried to open subagents inside their own tmux sessions but they've since resolved it. But they do take over the mouse mode I think.

It was not by law temporary, it was by law indefinitely renewable. You just had to hold a job that'll sponsor you. How is that materially different from any "normal" person who takes a 30 year mortgage with no guarantee that they will stay employed that long? Hell, the vast majority of H1Bs have much greater job security than the average home buyer anyway.

Again change the law if you want. Give a heads up. Or dont. Nothing the current government does to home owning H1Bs should be rank ordered anywhere but to the bottom quartile of the greatest injustices being doled out.

No one asks for that obligation. Only that the rules are stable and you give a heads up.

Immigration is a privilege, no more unfair than all of capitalism. If a country decides things are x or y levels hard to immigrate thats great.

The problem is the moving of goal posts. For decades, h1b (which is an immigrant visa) was a stable path to immigrate to America. People see that, and there was an implicit promise made there. If the US wants to decide not to continue with this practice that is fully fair. Just make up the rules clearly and give people a heads up. Is that too much to ask?

Can someone speculate on how this will actually play out in the coming decades?

I would argue that this is pretty disingenuous (as is most connectomics research I suppose) since its implying we have a fully wired connectome of the fly thats actually meaningful.