8년간의 갈망, AI와 함께한 3개월의 개발

For eight years, I’ve wanted a high-quality set of devtools for working with SQLite. Given how important SQLite is to the industry 1 , I’ve long been puzzled that no one has invested in building a really good developer experience for it 2 . A couple of weeks ago, after ~250 hours of effort over three months 3 on evenings, weekends, and vacation days, I finally released syntaqlite ( GitHub ), fulfilling this long-held wish. And I believe the main reason this happened was because of AI coding agents 4 . Of course, there’s no shortage of posts claiming that AI one-shot their project or pushing back and declaring that AI is all slop. I’m going to take a very different approach and, instead, systematically break down my experience building syntaqlite with AI, both where it helped and where it was detrimental. I’ll do this while contextualizing the project and my background so you can independently assess how generalizable this experience was. And whenever I make a claim, I’ll try to back it up with evidence from my project journal, coding transcripts, or commit history 5 . Why I wanted it In my work on Perfetto , I maintain a SQLite-based language for querying performance traces called PerfettoSQL . It’s basically the same as SQLite but with a few extensions to make the trace querying experience better. There are ~100K lines of PerfettoSQL internally in Google and it’s used by a wide range of teams. Having a language which gets traction means your users also start expecting things like formatters, linters, and editor extensions. I’d hoped that we could adapt some SQLite tools from open source but the more I looked into it, the more disappointed I was. What I found either wasn’t reliable enough, fast enough 6 , or flexible enough to adapt to PerfettoSQL. There was clearly an opportunity to build something from scratch, but it was never the “most important thing we could work on”. We’ve been reluctantly making do with the tools out there but always wishing for better. On the other hand, there was the option to do something in my spare time. I had built lots of open source projects in my teens 7 but this had faded away during university when I felt that I just didn’t have the motivation anymore. Being a maintainer is much more than just “throwing the code out there” and seeing what happens. It’s triaging bugs, investigating crashes, writing documentation, building a community, and, most importantly, having a direction for the project. But the itch of open source (specifically freedom to work on what I wanted while helping others) had never gone away. The SQLite devtools project was eternally in my mind as “something I’d like to work on”. But there was another reason why I kept putting it off: it sits at the intersection of being both hard and tedious. What makes it hard and tedious If I was going to invest my personal time working on this project, I didn’t want to build something that only helped Perfetto: I wanted to make it work for any SQLite user out there 8 . And this means parsing SQL exactly like SQLite. The heart of any language-oriented devtool is the parser. This is responsible for turning the source code into a “parse tree” which acts as the central data structure anything else is built on top of. If your parser isn’t accurate, then your formatters and linters will inevitably inherit those inaccuracies; many of the tools I found suffered from having parsers which approximated the SQLite language rather than representing it precisely. Unfortunately, unlike many other languages, SQLite has no formal specification describing how it should be parsed. It doesn’t expose a stable API for its parser either. In fact, quite uniquely, in its implementation it doesn’t even build a parse tree at all 9 ! The only reasonable approach left in my opinion is to carefully extract the relevant parts of SQLite’s source code and adapt it to build the parser I wanted 10 . This means getting into the weeds of SQLite source code, a fiendishly difficult codebase to understand. The whole project is written in C in an incredibly dense style ; I’ve spent days just understanding the virtual table API 11 and implementation . Trying to grasp the full parser stack was daunting. There’s also the fact that there are >400 rules in SQLite which capture the full surface area of its language. I’d have to specify in each of these “grammar rules” how that part of the syntax maps to the matching node in the parse tree. It’s extremely repetitive work; each rule is similar to all the ones around it but also, by definition, different. And it’s not just the rules but also coming up with and writing tests to make sure it’s correct, debugging if something is wrong, triaging and fixing the inevitable bugs people filed when I got something wrong… For years, this was where the idea died. Too hard for a side project 12 , too tedious to sustain motivation, too risky to invest months into something that might not work. How it happened I’ve been using coding agents since early 2025 (Aider, Roo Code, then Claude Code since July) and they’d definitely been useful but never something I felt I could trust a serious project to. But towards the end of 2025, the models seemed to make a significant step forward in quality 13 . At the same time, I kept hitting problems in Perfetto which would have been trivially solved by having a reliable parser. Each workaround left the same thought in the back of my mind: maybe it’s finally time to build it for real. I got some space to think and reflect over Christmas and decided to really stress test the most maximalist version of AI: could I vibe-code the whole thing using just Claude Code on the Max plan (£200/month)? Through most of January, I iterated, acting as semi-technical manager and delegating almost all the design and all the implementation to Claude. Functionally, I ended up in a reasonable place: a parser in C extracted from SQLite sources using a bunch of Python scripts, a formatter built on top, support for both the SQLite language and the PerfettoSQL extensions, all exposed in a web playground. But when I reviewed the codebase in detail in late January, the downside was obvious: the codebase was complete spaghetti 14 . I didn’t understand large parts of the Python source extraction pipeline, functions were scattered in random files without a clear shape, and a few files had grown to several thousand lines. It was extremely fragile; it solved the immediate problem but it was never going to cope with my larger vision, never mind integrating it into the Perfetto tools. The saving grace was that it had proved the approach was viable and generated more than 500 tests, many of which I felt I could reuse. I decided to throw away everything and start from scratch while also switching most of the codebase to Rust 15 . I could see that C was going to make it difficult to build the higher level components like the validator and the language server implementation. And as a bonus, it would also let me use the same language for both the extraction and runtime instead of splitting it across C and Python. More importantly, I completely changed my role in the project. I took ownership of all decisions 16 and used it more as “autocomplete on steroids” inside a much tighter process: opinionated design upfront, reviewing every change thoroughly, fixing problems eagerly as I spotted them, and investing in scaffolding (like linting, validation, and non-trivial testing 17 ) to check AI output automatically. The core features came together through February and the final stretch (upstream test validation, editor extensions, packaging, docs) led to a 0.1 launch in mid-March. But in my opinion, this timeline is the least interesting p