Agentic SDLC book cover

Agenda

Part I The Old Model

Built around human execution

Part II Machine Execution

Specs in · Evidence out

Part III Governance & Synthesis

Who decides · Who verifies

Closing Open Q&A

Press → or tap to start

Part I

The Old Model

The SDLC Is Changing
Agile Was Designed for Humans
The Myth of the AI Team
INVEST Doesn't Work for Agents

Built around human execution — an assumption that is quietly ending.

Every practice in software development rests on one assumption: a human will do the work.

True for seventy years.

No longer.

Machine-speed execution.
Human-speed process.

That is not progress. That is a mismatch.

Code

written faster

Requirements

still vague

Design

still implicit

Verification

still manual

Governance

after the fact

Every practice exists because of a human limit.

Stand-up
mental states must be synchronized
Story points
capacity is finite and variable
Code review
humans make mistakes
User stories
communication is lossy
Roles
one brain can't hold it all

The SDLC is coordination machinery for human execution.

Would this practice survive if the executor were a machine?

Stand-ups. Estimation. Code review. Org charts.

Principles survive. Practices often don't.

Survives

Working software, frequently. Integration. Automated tests.

Fades

Sprints. Stand-ups. Story points. Ceremonies.

Agile is not obsolete. It is incomplete.

There is no AI team.

An AI PM, an AI architect, an AI QA — a human team, just faster?

  • Roles exist for limits, coordination, accountability
  • An agent is one intelligence, one context
  • Job titles import human limits into machines

When you hear an agent described with a job title, ask: what deliverable does it produce?

Negotiable — the most dangerous property

An agent cannot join the conversation. It guesses.

Inference is not negotiation.

  • PPrecise — no ambiguity
  • RReviewable — at the right level
  • EEvidenced — proof of completion
  • CComplete — criteria, constraints, failures
  • IIndependent — verifiable alone
  • SSmall — precise + complete
  • EExecutable — machine-actionable

Part II

Machine Execution

Specifications Become the Interface
Agents Don't Need More Tokens
The Agent Harness Matters More
Autonomous Coding Is Not Autonomous Development

Specifications in. Evidence out. Harness in between.

Specifications are the interface

Plain English is not a specification.

Requirements
what was intended
Design
why this approach
Tasks
what was executed
Evidence
did it satisfy intent

Precision is not bureaucracy. It is what makes autonomy governable.

Tokens are not quality.

A million tokens to build the wrong thing is waste — at machine speed.

Correct deliverable → Verified outcome → Business value

Tokens appear nowhere in this chain.

"Which model?" is the wrong first question.

Context

what it sees

Tools

what it can do

Constraints

what it cannot

Memory

what persists

Feedback

tight loops

Validation

objective gates

Checkpoints

where it stops

Permissions

least privilege

A powerful engine and no steering wheel is not a fast car. It is an accident.

Autonomous coding ≠ autonomous development

Intent → Requirements → Design → Tasks → Implementation → Verification → Deployment → Monitoring
                                              ▲ autonomous coding
                                                addresses exactly one link
  • No requirements
  • No design
  • No evidence trail

Part III

Governance & Synthesis

Human-in-the-Loop Is Not a Checkbox
Governance Should Be a Byproduct
The New SDLC
What Actually Changes for Developers

Who decides. Who verifies. Who is accountable.

Human-in-the-loop is not a checkbox

Theater

5,000 lines. 30 files. One "approve".

Governance

Requirement. Design. Evidence. Decision.

Both had a human in the loop.

Six levels of human involvement

0 · None
reversible actions
1 · Notification
review after the fact
2 · Approval w/ override
human can block
3 · Approval required
production, compliance
4 · Human-directed
human defines the approach
5 · Human-executed
judgment only

Review intent. Review approach. Review evidence. Code — by exception.

Two lists.

What you built — and what you documented to prove it.

  • The requirement — already exists
  • The history — already recorded
  • The tests — already run
  • The approvals — already logged

The evidence package assembles itself.

Eight stages. Four gates. One evidence trail.

Intent
   ↓
Requirements ─────────────── ○ Human review gate
   ↓
Design ─────────────────── ○ Human review gate
   ↓
Tasks ─────────────────── ○ Human review gate
   ↓
Agentic execution
   ↓
Verification ────────────── ○ Human review gate
   ↓
Deployment
   ↓
Evidence (continuous, produced by the process itself)

Not waterfall — cycles in minutes, evidence every time.

The whole argument

01Humans define intent.
02Specifications preserve intent.
03Agents execute.
04Verification validates.
05Artifacts provide evidence.
06Humans govern.

A mental model that fits on one page.

The leverage shifts

Developers

specify · constrain · verify

Architects

govern decisions

Product managers

define intent

Managers

manage the system

Test engineers

design verification

People don't disappear. Their leverage changes.

The old question

How do we organize people to execute software work?

The new question

How do humans specify, constrain, verify, and govern machine execution?

The executor becomes the director.

Closing

Stop fitting agents into our old organization. Redesign the lifecycle around what machines can do.

From Agentic SDLC — Rethinking How We Build Software with AI Agents, by Leonardo Sampaio.