{"schemaVersion":"jobsearcher.job.v1","id":"46607a4605a3a3d1ca46d5bf","url":"https://jobsearcher.com/jobs/46607a4605a3a3d1ca46d5bf","canonicalUrl":"https://jobsearcher.com/jobs/46607a4605a3a3d1ca46d5bf","title":"Software Engineer (Agentic Development)","description":"Software Engineer (Agentic Development)\nArrow Audiology — Springfield, MO Full-time · On-site $85,000 – $105,000 a year\nAbout us\nArrow Audiology operates retail audiology clinics and provides audiology services to ENT practices. We build and run our own clinical and business operations software — the systems our clinicians and front-office staff use every day to see patients and run the business.\nThat software isn't a side project. It's how the company works, and it's built in-house.\nRead this part first\nWe develop AI-first. You would not be writing code by hand.\nAgents write the code here. Your job is judgment:\nKnowing what to ask for, and how precisely to ask for it\nKnowing what to look for in what comes back\nKnowing when the output is plausible and wrong\nKnowing when to iterate and when to throw it away and restart\nIf you love the craft of writing code by hand and that's what you want to spend your day doing, this will frustrate you and you should skip it. If you've been working this way already and want to do it somewhere fully committed to it, keep reading.\nAbout this role\nYou'd join a small in-house engineering team working on an established production codebase, reporting to a hands-on CTO who writes and reviews code — not a manager who used to.\nFor a mid-level engineer, that combination is hard to find: real ownership of systems in daily use, plus direct access to someone who knows them thoroughly.\nWhat you'll do\nTake business-level goals — sometimes quite big-picture — and drive them to working, shipped software\nDecompose broad requirements into work an agent can actually execute well\nDirect agentic tooling through implementation, iterating as you learn what the requirement really was\nDesign and run the verification loop. Most of the checking is done by agents — iterative passes that review the code, write documentation from it, and cross-check each other. Your job is building that loop, deciding what it has to catch, and judging whether its output can be trusted.\nReview the approach, scan the diff. The cheapest place to catch a problem is in the proposed solution, before it's built — that's where we want your attention. You'll still look over what comes out, scanning for anything that seems off, but not auditing it line by line.\nRead closely where mistakes are permanent — schema changes, migrations, anything touching how data is stored. Everywhere else, don't slow down to read it all.\nTest heavily. Agents make tests cheap, so there's rarely a reason not to have them. The judgment isn't whether to test — it's whether the tests assert the right behavior. A large green suite that mirrors the implementation instead of the requirement is worse than no tests, because it locks in a bug and looks like proof.\nRefine requirements collaboratively as they take shape. Requirements here are a starting point, not a specification — we expect to learn during implementation and change direction.\nDiagnose and fix production issues\nTake part in code review in both directions — reviewing others' work as well as having yours reviewed\nDocument what you learn as you learn it\nWhat we're looking for\nEngineering judgment, earned the hard way. You need to have written and debugged a lot of code in your career — that's how you learn to recognize a bad architectural direction the moment you see one proposed, and to know which mistakes are cheap to fix and which are permanent. We're not asking you to use that experience to type, and we're not asking you to read everything. We're asking you to catch the wrong approach before it gets built.\nSpecifically:\nDeep understanding of the system, without reading all of it. Your main intervention point is the proposed solution, not the finished diff. You need to know how things work well enough to spot when an approach cuts against the grain — and to say so before it's implemented.\nReal production experience with React, Node and TypeScript — enough to evaluate a proposed approach quickly and judge whether it fits\nReal care with data. Schema design, migrations and SQL are the one place we do want you reading closely and slowly. Everywhere else you can move fast; here, mistakes are expensive or impossible to undo.\nDemonstrated experience driving agentic tooling on real work — not experiments\nWell-calibrated skepticism. You've been burned by confidently wrong output and it changed how you work — including a healthy wariness about agents that mark their own homework.\nImplementation-level defects — race conditions, unhandled errors, missed edge cases — are the loop's job to catch, not yours to find by reading. Your experience of those bugs is what tells you to make sure the loop is looking for them.\nComfort with ambiguity and iteration. Requirements will arrive incomplete and change as we learn.\nClear writing. Specification is the primary skill here.\nWillingness to ask why. We want design decisions questioned — politely, with reasoning, but out loud.\nComfortable on a small team, and comfortable being mentored\nNice to have\nHealthcare software, or another regulated domain\nExperience as an early engineer somewhere\nProduct instincts — you'll help decide what \"done\" means, not just build to a spec\nExperience maintaining and extending existing systems, not just greenfield\nSome infrastructure and deployment capability\nNo computer science degree required. No audiology experience required.\nOne constraint worth knowing upfront: we work with protected health information, so there are firm rules about what data can go into which tools. You'd need to understand the reasoning, not just follow the rule.\nBeing straight with you\nSmall team, on-site in Springfield. Your work will be reviewed closely while you're ramping, which some people find supportive, and some find claustrophobic.\nThe codebase has consistent patterns and very little accumulated archaeology — once you understand how it thinks, a lot of it becomes predictable. There's also documentation we'd like you to help improve.\nThe work is used by clinicians with patients in the room. Reliability matters more than elegance here.\nAnd to say it once more, because it's the thing most likely to be a mismatch: you would not be writing code by hand. If that's a loss rather than a relief, this isn't your job.\nBenefits\nHealth, dental, vision, & PTO\nArrow Audiology is an equal opportunity employer. We consider all qualified applicants without regard to race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, age, disability, veteran status, or any other protected characteristic.\nPay: $85,000.00 - $105,000.00 per year\nBenefits:\nDental insurance\nHealth insurance\nPaid time off\nVision insurance\nWork Location: In person","company":"Arrow Audiology","rawCompany":"arrow audiology","city":"Springfield","state":"MO","isRemote":false,"isActive":false,"createdAt":"2026-08-13T15:20:59.887Z","occupations":[{"code":"15-1252.00","title":"Software Developers","slug":"software-developers"},{"code":"15-1299.08","title":"Computer Systems Engineers/Architects","slug":"computer-systems-engineers-architects"},{"code":"15-1253.00","title":"Software Quality Assurance Analysts and Testers","slug":"software-quality-assurance-analysts-and-testers"}],"industries":[{"code":"541511","title":"Custom Computer Programming Services","slug":"custom-computer-programming-services"},{"code":"513210","title":"Software Publishers","slug":"software-publishers"},{"code":"541512","title":"Computer Systems Design Services","slug":"computer-systems-design-services"}],"jobPosting":{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"JobPosting","title":"Software Engineer (Agentic Development)","description":"Software Engineer (Agentic Development)\nArrow Audiology — Springfield, MO Full-time · On-site $85,000 – $105,000 a year\nAbout us\nArrow Audiology operates retail audiology clinics and provides audiology services to ENT practices. We build and run our own clinical and business operations software — the systems our clinicians and front-office staff use every day to see patients and run the business.\nThat software isn't a side project. It's how the company works, and it's built in-house.\nRead this part first\nWe develop AI-first. You would not be writing code by hand.\nAgents write the code here. Your job is judgment:\nKnowing what to ask for, and how precisely to ask for it\nKnowing what to look for in what comes back\nKnowing when the output is plausible and wrong\nKnowing when to iterate and when to throw it away and restart\nIf you love the craft of writing code by hand and that's what you want to spend your day doing, this will frustrate you and you should skip it. If you've been working this way already and want to do it somewhere fully committed to it, keep reading.\nAbout this role\nYou'd join a small in-house engineering team working on an established production codebase, reporting to a hands-on CTO who writes and reviews code — not a manager who used to.\nFor a mid-level engineer, that combination is hard to find: real ownership of systems in daily use, plus direct access to someone who knows them thoroughly.\nWhat you'll do\nTake business-level goals — sometimes quite big-picture — and drive them to working, shipped software\nDecompose broad requirements into work an agent can actually execute well\nDirect agentic tooling through implementation, iterating as you learn what the requirement really was\nDesign and run the verification loop. Most of the checking is done by agents — iterative passes that review the code, write documentation from it, and cross-check each other. Your job is building that loop, deciding what it has to catch, and judging whether its output can be trusted.\nReview the approach, scan the diff. The cheapest place to catch a problem is in the proposed solution, before it's built — that's where we want your attention. You'll still look over what comes out, scanning for anything that seems off, but not auditing it line by line.\nRead closely where mistakes are permanent — schema changes, migrations, anything touching how data is stored. Everywhere else, don't slow down to read it all.\nTest heavily. Agents make tests cheap, so there's rarely a reason not to have them. The judgment isn't whether to test — it's whether the tests assert the right behavior. A large green suite that mirrors the implementation instead of the requirement is worse than no tests, because it locks in a bug and looks like proof.\nRefine requirements collaboratively as they take shape. Requirements here are a starting point, not a specification — we expect to learn during implementation and change direction.\nDiagnose and fix production issues\nTake part in code review in both directions — reviewing others' work as well as having yours reviewed\nDocument what you learn as you learn it\nWhat we're looking for\nEngineering judgment, earned the hard way. You need to have written and debugged a lot of code in your career — that's how you learn to recognize a bad architectural direction the moment you see one proposed, and to know which mistakes are cheap to fix and which are permanent. We're not asking you to use that experience to type, and we're not asking you to read everything. We're asking you to catch the wrong approach before it gets built.\nSpecifically:\nDeep understanding of the system, without reading all of it. Your main intervention point is the proposed solution, not the finished diff. You need to know how things work well enough to spot when an approach cuts against the grain — and to say so before it's implemented.\nReal production experience with React, Node and TypeScript — enough to evaluate a proposed approach quickly and judge whether it fits\nReal care with data. Schema design, migrations and SQL are the one place we do want you reading closely and slowly. Everywhere else you can move fast; here, mistakes are expensive or impossible to undo.\nDemonstrated experience driving agentic tooling on real work — not experiments\nWell-calibrated skepticism. You've been burned by confidently wrong output and it changed how you work — including a healthy wariness about agents that mark their own homework.\nImplementation-level defects — race conditions, unhandled errors, missed edge cases — are the loop's job to catch, not yours to find by reading. Your experience of those bugs is what tells you to make sure the loop is looking for them.\nComfort with ambiguity and iteration. Requirements will arrive incomplete and change as we learn.\nClear writing. Specification is the primary skill here.\nWillingness to ask why. We want design decisions questioned — politely, with reasoning, but out loud.\nComfortable on a small team, and comfortable being mentored\nNice to have\nHealthcare software, or another regulated domain\nExperience as an early engineer somewhere\nProduct instincts — you'll help decide what \"done\" means, not just build to a spec\nExperience maintaining and extending existing systems, not just greenfield\nSome infrastructure and deployment capability\nNo computer science degree required. No audiology experience required.\nOne constraint worth knowing upfront: we work with protected health information, so there are firm rules about what data can go into which tools. You'd need to understand the reasoning, not just follow the rule.\nBeing straight with you\nSmall team, on-site in Springfield. Your work will be reviewed closely while you're ramping, which some people find supportive, and some find claustrophobic.\nThe codebase has consistent patterns and very little accumulated archaeology — once you understand how it thinks, a lot of it becomes predictable. There's also documentation we'd like you to help improve.\nThe work is used by clinicians with patients in the room. Reliability matters more than elegance here.\nAnd to say it once more, because it's the thing most likely to be a mismatch: you would not be writing code by hand. If that's a loss rather than a relief, this isn't your job.\nBenefits\nHealth, dental, vision, & PTO\nArrow Audiology is an equal opportunity employer. We consider all qualified applicants without regard to race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, age, disability, veteran status, or any other protected characteristic.\nPay: $85,000.00 - $105,000.00 per year\nBenefits:\nDental insurance\nHealth insurance\nPaid time off\nVision insurance\nWork Location: In person","datePosted":"2026-08-13T15:20:59.887Z","dateModified":"2026-08-13T15:20:59.887Z","hiringOrganization":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Arrow Audiology","sameAs":"https://jobsearcher.com"},"jobLocation":{"@type":"Place","address":{"@type":"PostalAddress","addressLocality":"Springfield","addressRegion":"MO","addressCountry":"US"}},"identifier":{"@type":"PropertyValue","name":"JobSearcher","value":"46607a4605a3a3d1ca46d5bf"},"url":"https://jobsearcher.com/jobs/46607a4605a3a3d1ca46d5bf"}}