Problem
A weekly spreadsheet process made it difficult to distinguish genuinely urgent coverage gaps from future planning work, explain who could cover safely, and keep manager actions auditable.
Back to selected work
Privacy-safe public engineering extract
Roster Command
Privacy-aware extraction, scheduling domain modeling, explainable ranking and disciplined edge-case testing.
Actual productRoster Command
SourceSelected domain logic
DeliveryPassing GitHub Actions
Quality23 Vitest checks
BoundarySynthetic data only
01
Context and ownership
The problem, the decisions I owned and the boundary of my contribution.
My role
I extracted, sanitised and documented the scheduling domain logic, then strengthened validation, deterministic ranking and edge-case coverage without publishing private operational code or data.
02
System and engineering decisions
A recruiter-readable map of the product path, followed by the implementation choices behind it.
01Synthetic input contracts
02Coverage and urgency engines
03Explainable deterministic ranking
04Vitest edge-case suite
Key product decisions
- Urgency ranking across critical, high, medium, planning, future and missed work
- Explainable cover suggestions using conflicts, holidays, recency and working patterns
- Employee lifecycle and site-restriction handling
- Deterministic tie-breaking with evidence for every suggested employee
- Strict invalid date/time and multi-day-shift handling
- TypeScript
- Vitest
- GitHub Actions
- Synthetic fixtures
- Domain modeling
03
Verification and release boundary
How the build is checked, delivered and kept honest about what is production-ready.
Automated verification
- Twenty-three tests cover overlap, overnight and multi-day shifts, invalid inputs and missing end times
- Fixtures cover duplicate records, same-name employees and stable tie-breaking
- Type checking and tests run together through the repository check command
- GitHub Actions runs the same public verification command
Deployment
The public repository is not the complete application. A separate recruiter URL demonstrates a synthetic, read-only boundary; the extract contains selected scheduling logic and no private UI, database or provider integration.
Security
No employer, employee or client records are included. Employee IDs, deduplication and synthetic fixtures reduce accidental identity ambiguity in the public examples.
04
Tradeoffs and next work
What remains incomplete is shown deliberately, because engineering judgment includes knowing what not to claim.
Current tradeoffs
The extract proves scheduling decisions and test quality, not the private application's full React, database, authentication or deployment implementation.
Next improvements
- Add property-based coverage around interval boundaries
- Document additional anonymised decision examples
- Integrate the hardened domain package back into the private application after owner review
What this proves