Skip to content
~/tariqul.islam
/projects

/projects/ai-built-apps

2025–2026

StampBD & Amaz — shipped with zero hand-written code

client:
StampBD (own venture) · Amaz (Spondon IT)
role:
Director of the build — architect, reviewer, deployer
  • Claude
  • GitHub Copilot
  • Laravel
  • MySQL

01 — the problem

What was actually at stake

The honest question about AI coding: does it hold up past the demo? I wanted a real answer with real stakes. StampBD serves Bangladesh's stamp vendors — stock tracking, sales management, government reporting — as a multi-tenant SaaS with a database per tenant. Amaz is a self-hosted Amazon seller management platform: inventory, purchase orders, sales and invoicing, demand forecasting, returns, HR and payroll, multi-warehouse, SP-API integration. Neither is a toy.

02 — the architecture

How it was built

The method is the architecture: I write specifications and architecture decisions; AI generates the implementation; I review every diff like a tech lead reviewing a team — rejecting, redirecting, demanding tests. CI gates (types, tests, lint) catch what review misses. Deployment and the first production incidents ran through the same directed loop.

Direction, not absence. The judgment calls — StampBD's tenancy model, Amaz's SP-API sync and forecasting boundaries, what not to build — were nine years of engineering experience operating at a higher altitude.

architecture — at a glance
spec
human-written architecture & acceptance criteria
generation
Copilot + Claude, every line
gate
human diff review + CI (types, tests, lint)
stampbd
multi-DB SaaS — stock, sales, gov reporting
amaz
Amazon seller platform — SP-API, forecasting, multi-warehouse

03 — the visuals

What it looks like

Illustrated architecture overview of StampBD & Amaz — shipped with zero hand-written code
fig. 01 — /projects/ai-built-apps/cover

screenshot pending (NDA-safe crop)

drop /public/images/projects/ai-built-apps/01.jpg · 1600×900 · see docs/images.md

fig. 02 — screenshot, primary view

screenshot pending (NDA-safe crop)

drop /public/images/projects/ai-built-apps/02.jpg · 1600×900 · see docs/images.md

fig. 03 — screenshot, detail view

04 — from the codebase

From the workflow: every feature starts as a spec, not code

From the workflow: every feature starts as a spec, not code
## Feature spec: vendor stock intake (StampBD)

**Decision (human):** stock arrives as government allocations,
not free-form purchases. Intake records allocation ref, series,
and denomination — reports must reconcile to the allocation.

**Acceptance (human):**
- [ ] intake without an allocation ref is impossible
- [ ] series/denomination splits sum to the allocation, always
- [ ] government report regenerates byte-identical from ledger

**Implementation (AI):** generate models, intake flow, report
builder, and tests satisfying the above. Flag anything
underspecified instead of guessing.

05 — the outcome

What the numbers say

hand-written lines of code
0
real products shipped (1 SaaS, 1 self-hosted)
2
of diffs human-reviewed
100%

The method works — and it's now how I deliver client work faster without lowering the bar.

/projects/ai-built-apps/next

Need something in this neighborhood?

If this case study sounds like your problem — same domain, same scale, same kind of mess — I've already made the expensive mistakes for you. Tell me where you're stuck.