How we write the Fajarix blog
Every article on this site is created with AI assistance and reviewed by Fajarix engineers before publication. We believe in being transparent about that — both because Google's guidelines ask for it, and because our readers deserve to know how the content they're reading was made.
Here's the full process, end to end.
01Topic selection
Topics come from a planned editorial calendar tied to our service and solution pages — the topics our clients actually ask about. The selection algorithm picks from a 130-topic cluster map, prioritising whichever pillar is most under-supported, with one news-driven post per week to track the industry.
02AI-assisted research
A senior model (Claude Opus) is given the topic, target keyword, and curated source material. It produces a structured first draft following our editorial template — with explicit instructions to add original Fajarix perspective, not paraphrase the source.
03Engineering review
Drafts pass through a validation stage that checks structure, accuracy of technical claims, and Fajarix-specific framing. We reject paraphrased content and require at least two sections of independent analysis based on real production engineering experience.
04Publication
Approved articles publish to fajarix.com/blogs with proper structured data, descriptive metadata, and an AI-assistance disclosure on every page. Updates and corrections are tracked via a `dateModified` timestamp.
05Ongoing accuracy
Articles that become outdated are revised or retired. Factual errors found post-publication are corrected with a visible update note. We do not change publish dates to fake freshness.
Why AI-assisted writing?
Fajarix is an AI-native software agency — we build production AI systems for our clients. It would be inconsistent to publish a blog without using the same tools we deploy daily. AI assistance lets us cover technical ground at a pace we couldn't match by hand alone.
But AI without human judgement produces generic, paraphrased content. Every article goes through engineering review specifically to catch:
- •Inaccurate technical claims (especially around versioning, pricing, and tooling)
- •Sections that lack original Fajarix perspective and only restate the source material
- •Generic framing that doesn't match how engineers actually talk about the topic
- •Anything that reads like a marketing brochure rather than a working engineer's perspective
If we can't add genuine engineering perspective to a draft, the post doesn't go live.
Found a mistake?
Despite our review process, errors slip through. If you spot a factual mistake or outdated information in any article, we want to hear about it — we'll fix it and credit you in the update note.
Report a correction