Google's Chief Engineer Reveals! Team Disputes for 1 Year, Project Claude Resolved in 1 Hour

Google Chief Engineer and Go Language Legend Jaana Dogan reveals: her team spent a year arguing over a decentralized agent orchestrator, but she used Claude Code to create a prototype in just 1 hour. She states that the team has fallen into the “big company disease,” with endless meetings and PPT debates. She claims that Claude has achieved “expert-level aesthetics.”

Google’s Big Company Disease vs. Rapid Delivery with Claude Code

Jaana Dogan aims to tackle a complex system engineering project called the decentralized agent orchestrator. Following Google’s typical process, they first hold a brainstorming meeting, then create hundreds of pages of PPTs to align on details. Team A advocates for one solution, Team B prefers another, leading to endless debates, compromises, and review processes. The result is that after a year, the project is still “trying to build” something. Many of you probably know this big company disease all too well.

But this time, Jaana seems to have a hot temper. She couldn’t take it anymore. Spurred by impulse, she directly handed the requirements to Claude Code from Anthropic. Unexpected yet logical, in just 1 hour, Claude Code provided her with a working prototype. Not perfect, but this is something her team had been struggling with for a year.

This story sounds almost miraculous. After all, Google is not a small workshop, and its engineers are not amateurs. One Claude Code can outperform an elite team? Facing such skepticism, this fiery-tempered woman retorts: Don’t argue, just try it yourself. Pick a domain you’re most skilled in, ask it to write a complex thing from scratch, and you’ll understand what I mean.

Besides skepticism, there are also sarcastic remarks: Doesn’t Google have a bunch of proprietary tools like Antigravity? Why not use them? Her response is very gracious, stating that providing engineers with the best AI programming tools is the best decision you can make, and allowing employees to use competing products shows the company’s broad-mindedness.

A Cognitive Shock in Silicon Valley’s Top Circles

At this point, some might say it’s because the code is too simple, or that this person hasn’t seen the world. But Jaana Dogan is not a fresh graduate intern. She is Google’s Chief Engineer, a legendary figure in the Go language community, and among the top 1% of global technical experts. Even experts of her caliber believe that the code produced by current programming agents, especially Claude Code, is not only usable but also architecturally and logically at an expert level of aesthetics. Does this mean the singularity is truly here?

Collective Certification by Top Developers

Google Chief Engineer Jaana Dogan

· Legend in the Go language community

· Top 1% global technical expert

· Certified Claude Code as meeting expert-level aesthetic standards

xAI Core Member Igor Babuschkin

· Key figure in Elon Musk’s xAI team

· Publicly acknowledges “Opus 4.5 is quite good”

· Most convincing recognition from competitors

AI Influencer Andrej Karpathy

· Former Tesla AI Director, OpenAI founding member

· Directly affirms Claude’s capabilities

· Influence spans the entire AI development community

Claude Code Founder Boris Cherny

· Easily posts simple tutorials

· Instantly attracts over 2 million viewers to learn

· Demonstrates explosive market demand

This kind of cognitive shock is sweeping through Silicon Valley’s top circles. Recently, not only Jaana but even Elon Musk’s xAI core member Igor Babuschkin has to admit: Opus 4.5 is quite good. AI influencer Andrej Karpathy even directly added his endorsement. Last night, Boris Cherny, founder of Claude Code, casually posted a simple tutorial, which immediately drew over 2 million viewers.

While industry giants are shouting that a new era is coming, millions are rushing to catch up overnight. When top global experts collectively endorse a tool, it’s no longer hype or marketing but a real industry transformation. These are the best programmers and most advanced development environments. If they say Claude Code reaches expert standards, then it truly has.

The Efficiency Revolution Behind the Tool War

Currently, many people online are busy questioning: Can AI that writes front-end code also handle back-end logic? When AI draws pictures, do skeptics say it’s just collage and not design? But the real issue is, many skeptics haven’t even tried it once. This reveals a fundamental truth: tools are just tools.

Whether it’s Google’s or Anthropic’s, whether it’s a domestic shining star or an overseas large model, as long as it solves problems and improves efficiency, it’s good. Jaana Dogan’s approach exemplifies this pragmatic attitude. As Google’s Chief Engineer, she could have insisted on internal tools to show loyalty, but she prioritized efficiency instead.

This choice reflects the mindset of top engineers: they care not about where the tools come from, but whether they solve problems. When a team spends a year arguing, breaking the deadlock with Claude Code in just 1 hour is a leap in efficiency—an order of magnitude change. From 1 year to 1 hour, efficiency has increased by 8,760 times.

Commentator YuChen Jin points out that providing engineers with the best AI programming tools is the best decision you can make. Allowing employees to use competing products also demonstrates a broad-minded company. Such openness is rare among tech giants and one of the reasons Google can attract top talent. If a company forces employees to only use internal tools regardless of efficiency, it ultimately harms itself.

By 2026, There Are Only Two Types of People: Doers and Critics

Anyone who thinks AI is a bubble has definitely never used Claude Opus 4.5. Though this statement sounds absolute, it captures the core contradiction of current AI debates. Most skeptics’ issues are not over-caution but lack of real experience. They judge based on imagination and bias, not actual testing.

It’s 2026 now. Put aside prejudice and arrogance. There are only two kinds of people in this era: those who leverage AI (even if it’s a competitor’s) to get things done, and critics who stand on the sidelines arguing whether the water is cold or hot. This divide will become more apparent in the next 1-2 years. Developers embracing AI tools will see exponential efficiency gains, while those clinging to old methods will find it harder and harder to keep up.

Jaana Dogan’s case is not isolated but a microcosm of a paradigm shift happening across the industry. When chief-level experts start relying on AI programming tools, it’s not about tools replacing humans but humans breaking through productivity boundaries with tools. Those who question AI as a bubble are essentially doubting things they refuse to understand. Trying it hands-on is always better than just talking.