What we look for
Generalists who ship. Engineering, design, and editorial roles tend to look similar at our size — taste, judgment, and the ability to scope work without supervision. Specialist backgrounds in cognitive science, neuroscience, or AI-and-skill-development research are unusually welcome for Senwitt's editorial team.
Engineering at Apik Systems
The Senwitt web stack is Next.js 16 (App Router, Turbopack), React 19, TypeScript 5.9, Tailwind v4, MDX for long-form content. The mobile clients are native — iOS in Swift, Android in Kotlin. The data layer is Postgres on managed infrastructure, with caching at the edge. The team writes its own tools, runs its own CI, and ships frequently. We use AI assistants every day for the same reason we use a debugger every day; we read everything they produce and the reviewing engineer is responsible for what merges.
The standard at our size is small surface area, high responsibility, fast feedback. People who like coordinating across many teams will not enjoy this shape. People who like owning a problem end-to-end will.
Editorial at Senwitt
The editorial team writes the blog, the research pages, the answer pages, and the comparison pages — all of it citation-dense, all of it under the "Senwitt Editorial Team" byline (see the team page for the reasoning). The work is closer to a careful trade-press desk than to conventional SEO content writing — every claim has a link, every preprint is flagged, every banned-phrase pattern is grep'd before publication.
People with backgrounds in cognitive science, neuroscience, science journalism, or independent research are the strongest fit. People who write fast and well but have not been trained to chase primary sources will need to learn the discipline before shipping anything.
Where we work
Mumbai HQ, with most of the team remote across India and parts of Europe. We bias toward in-person bursts (every 4–8 weeks) rather than continuous co-location. See the Apik Systems page for the wider company context.
What we do not offer
A San Francisco office. A polished equity package presented before the conversation about whether the role fits. Inflated comp ranges that exist mainly to attract a wide funnel. Open-ended "exploratory" roles designed to make the hiring page look bigger. Job titles that overstate the actual scope of the work. None of the above are wrong in the abstract — plenty of good companies do them — but they are not honest at our size, so we don't do them.
When we do hire, the conversation tends to be short, specific, and focused on one question: is this the right problem for you to spend the next year of your life on? If the answer is yes, we move quickly. If not, we move on quickly.
