Three groups drawn from the same sources. Choose a group to select whose experience counts. Within that group, each author counts once in the practitioner sentiment, with their latest view. Signals open on All practitioners. Leaders and teams have 15 accounts; GILD prints their sentiment from 20.
Engineering leaders and teams
18 sources. These accounts focus on how Junie works on a shared codebase, the tests it produces, review load, and what changes when Junie moves from one engineer to a team.
Individual builders
71 sources. These accounts focus on raw capability, speed, credits, and how Junie compares with the agent each builder already uses.
All practitioners
89 sources. This gives the broadest read. It mixes work settings that can reach different conclusions.
89 sources from practitioners, by the context they work in. Filled rows count for this group.
- Individual practitionerSolo developers and independent builders71 sources, counted here
Emphasizes Speed, credits, and how Junie compares with other agents
- Very small team2 to 10 engineers9 sources, counted here
Emphasizes Shared guidelines and what reaches review
- Professional team11 to 50 engineers, or a named company's team3 sources, counted here
Emphasizes Which task types pay off in a pilot
- Technical leadershipLeaders setting adoption across teams6 sources, counted here
Emphasizes IDE fit and onboarding across a team
- Organization-wideEnterprise or company-wide rolloutNo sources from this setting yet
What changes with scale. Individual builders focus on speed, credits, and whether Junie beats the agent they already use. Team and leadership accounts shift toward how well Junie reads a shared codebase, the tests it writes, and how uneven its results become as tasks grow.