agentic-sdlc

Intent · CHG-2026-014880

Stage artifact from intent/CHG-2026-014880-showcase-scaffold.md, header and all.

View intent/CHG-2026-014880-showcase-scaffold.md on GitHub ↗
change_id: CHG-2026-014880
risk_class: R3
autonomy_tier: A2
controls: ['CHG-04', 'TRC-01', 'HUM-14', 'TPR-05', 'SEC-API-01', 'DP-11', 'FIN-02', 'FRZ-01', 'SOD-01']
data_classification: internal
originator: olaf@freundcloud.com
agent_identity: svc-agent-platform
model_route: gateway/tier-frontier
supersedes: None

Problem

The Agentic SDLC Playbook v1.0 describes a seven-stage lifecycle, five planes, a portable artifact chain and an autonomy matrix. It is a good document and it is only a document. When we take it to a bank, the CISO asks “what does the gate actually do when someone tries that”, and the honest answer today is “here is the paragraph about it”.

A prospect cannot tell the difference between a control that is designed and a control that operates. Neither, in the end, can a supervisor.

Who is affected

Anyone presenting the playbook — every engagement conversation. The prospect’s CISO, head of engineering and internal audit, who need to agree on what “the agent is allowed to do” means before a programme can start. Our own delivery teams, who otherwise rebuild this scaffolding per engagement.

Success criteria

  1. A consultant can show a gate refusing a change, live, in under a minute.
  2. Every claim in the playbook that can be executed, is executed — the Substitution Test scores itself from the repository rather than being self-assessed.
  3. The repository is built through its own artifact chain. If we exempt ourselves, the demo is a lie the audience will notice.
  4. Swapping the agent runtime is an edit to one workflow step, not to the operating model.
  5. Every generated artifact states plainly that it is a demo.

Out of scope

Constraints

Open questions