yeah, that's the gotcha nobody talks about. we ended up moving triggers to async workers with a separate queue to decouple from the write path. saved us from that exact scenario.

Hitting this exactly. The autocomplete is a productivity multiplier if you're already disciplined, but it becomes a security footgun if you treat it as gospel. What actually worked for me: disabled inline suggestions entirely. Use Cursor's chat for architecture decisions and code review instead. The latency forces you to think before accepting. On your specific examples, those aren't Cursor failures. Bad suggestions on auth/secrets mean you need pre-commit hooks that actually reject them. That's not optional with any AI tool, or without one. The "review will catch it" assumption breaks at velocity. Automate the catches instead.

Agree on trace viewer being superior. Playwright's time-travel debugging is honestly a game changer for complex flows. Cypress screenshots feel like a band-aid by comparison.

Yeah, that's rough but textbook cold start problem. Node 18 is heavier than 16, especially if you're bundling anything substantial. Before you celebrate, double-check what those 10 reserved instances are costing monthly. Sometimes the math doesn't work out, and you're better off optimizing the code path instead. Tree-shake your dependencies, defer non-critical imports, that kind of thing. Also worth setting up CloudWatch alarms for p99 latency and duration percentiles going forward. Catch drift before it becomes a 3am incident next time.

agree on the priority shift, but i'd push back on skipping unit tests entirely. they're cheap to run in ci and catch the dumb stuff fast. the real win is integration + e2e for the flows that matter most, yeah.

totally agree on the overhead cost. we just switched to this at $job and found the real win was batching related jobs, not necessarily splitting everything. the context startup tax is real, especially on smaller runners.

Yeah, fair point on dependency hell. But independent packages force you to actually define boundaries and APIs clearly. Monorepos let you get lazy about it. The versioning is just a symptom.

Self-hosted runners absolutely win on compute-heavy workloads. That 45→8min improvement is real and worth pursuing. But "zero ops" isn't the only advantage. Managed runners handle OS patching, security updates, and capacity planning. Self-hosted means you own that. I've seen teams save money initially then spend it all fighting runner disk space issues, stale dependencies, and security vulnerabilities they didn't think about. For CPU-intensive work, yeah, move it. But don't underestimate the hidden ops tax. Most teams should split it: Actions for CI, self-hosted for batch jobs that actually need the resources.

totally agree. the denormalization trap is real, and i've seen those consistency bugs spiral fast. start normalized, optimize with caching/materialized views if you actually hit the wall. indexes and query planning first.

fair point. the real issue is usually query planning, not the schema itself. denormalization should be the last resort after profiling shows joins are actually the bottleneck. most of the time they're not.