Verifiable AI Coding Workflow
A small agent-assisted coding workflow where the useful artifact is not generated code, but a checked path from idea to tests, diff, review, and handoff.
- Buildability
- B2 engineer-repeatable
- Status
- candidate
- Time
- 1-2 hours in a prepared repository
- Cost
- Low to medium, depending on model and test loop length
- Human approval
- Local file edits only; commits and deploys remain explicit approvals
- Last verified
- Aug 6, 2026
Outcome demo
Turn an implementation idea into a bounded coding task with checks and reviewable evidence. Wow moment: The agent does not just produce a patch; it leaves commands, changed files, acceptance checks, and a human-readable handoff. Current bottleneck: Requires a repo with runnable checks and a human willing to enforce task boundaries. This New Runtime record is an evidence-linked retrieval unit.
Can I build this?
- Code level
- Developer or technical operator
- Data touched
- Repository source, tests, local command output
- Write actions
- Local file edits only; commits and deploys remain explicit approvals
- Sources
- 1 public receipt
System map
- Human
- Defines scope, approves write actions, reviews output.
- Agent
- Plans, edits, verifies, and reports with evidence.
- Data
- Repository source, tests, local command output
- Actions
- Local file edits only; commits and deploys remain explicit approvals
What has to reproduce
The JSON route exposes proof, handoff, permissions, acceptance checks, and source URLs in one replayable contract.
- Verification
- locally reproduced
- Outputs
- 6 fixtures
- Replay
- 2 receipts
- Axes
- 7 assessed
Fixture outputs
- Project JSON contract
dist/projects/verifiable-ai-coding-workflow.jsonThe JSON route exposes proof, handoff, permissions, acceptance checks, and source URLs in one replayable contract.
Open route - Build brief handoff
dist/projects/verifiable-ai-coding-workflow/build-brief.mdThe build brief preserves scope, non-goals, build steps, questions, and approval gates without requiring the original chat.
Open route - Acceptance checklist
dist/projects/verifiable-ai-coding-workflow/acceptance.mdThe checklist separates required checks, permission scopes, reproduction commands, known limits, and failure conditions.
Open route - Clean-room replay fixture
scripts/project-proof-depth-v2-fixture-test.mjsThe fixture replays a bounded coding task in a temporary directory, proves the initial failure and final pass, and verifies that an unrelated file is unchanged.
- Independent replay kit
scripts/project-proof-independent-replay-kit.mjsThe kit starts failing, exposes no ready solution, protects every out-of-scope file by checksum, and refuses to emit a receipt without a non-author attestation and a passing final check.
- Independent agent replay receipt
src/data/project-proof-receipts/verifiable-ai-coding-workflow-independent-agent-v1.jsonA separately operated Codex received only the isolated kit, observed the initial failure, changed only src/add.mjs, passed the final check, and produced an attestation that the primary verifier accepted.
Open route
Replay commands
npm run project-proof:replay:testnpm run project-proof:replay:preparenpm run validate:contentnpm run buildnpm run validate:agent-indexes
Provider scopes
- Local repositorywrite
Focused source, test, or documentation files inside the shared worktree.
The workflow proves a bounded implementation loop through local edits and checks.
Human names the task and repository before edits start.
- Git remotepublish
Focused commit and push only when explicitly requested.
Some workflows end in a reviewable remote branch or production release, but this is not automatic.
Commit, push, deploy, and external writes require a separate explicit owner command.
- Test runner or local dev serverread
Named checks and local rendered routes needed for the accepted task.
Model output is not evidence until a command, artifact, or rendered page confirms the claim.
Human or repo docs identify which checks count for acceptance.
Seven-axis Buildability
non author replayed · 2026-08-06
- timehigh
- The clean-room task reaches a checked result in one bounded local run, while the public blueprint targets first value within one to two hours.
- BottleneckRepository setup and test availability still determine the real start time.
- code burdenmedium
- The workflow needs a developer-readable task and a focused source edit, but no bespoke application or new service.
- BottleneckA nontechnical owner still needs an agent or engineer to interpret failures.
- integration burdenhigh
- The replay uses only repository files, Node, a test runner, and the existing agent handoff contract.
- BottleneckRepositories without a runnable local check need an integration step before replay.
- operational burdenhigh
- The first proof is local and temporary, requires no server, and deletes no shared or production state.
- BottleneckLong-running or deployment tasks would need additional recovery and monitoring rules.
- permission clarityhigh
- Read, local-write, commit, push, deploy, and external-write boundaries are named separately in the build brief and acceptance contract.
- BottleneckA broader task can still create ambiguity unless exact files and approvals are fixed before editing.
- reproducibilityhigh
- A separately operated Codex received only the isolated public kit, reproduced the initial failure, changed the one allowed file, and passed the same acceptance check without inspecting the author solution.
- BottleneckA real external repository replay would test integration burden beyond this bounded fixture.
- failure recoveryhigh
- The replay records the initial failing check, preserves an unrelated file, performs no remote action, and leaves explicit residual-risk and approval sections.
- BottleneckProduction rollback and credential recovery are outside this local proof.
Replay evidence
Bounded receipts, with limitations kept visible.
automated clean room · 2026-08-06
npm run project-proof:replay:test- This replay proves the deterministic local contract and failure boundary, not a real external repository integration.
- No human or separately operated agent independently interpreted the brief in this first replay.
independent agent · 2026-08-06
node --test test/add.test.mjs- This proves a bounded non-author replay of the public workflow contract, not integration into a production repository.
- Reviewer identity is a local agent attestation and is not cryptographically verified.
- The workflow needs a repository with runnable checks; otherwise the blocker must be explicit and reproducible.
- It does not replace human review for broad architecture changes, credentials, payments, or publication.
- The proof is strongest for bounded tasks; exploratory research still needs a separate evidence workflow.
- The independent replay proves the bounded public workflow contract, not integration into a real external or production repository.
- The independent reviewer identity is a local agent attestation and is not cryptographically verified.
Fork with an agent
Use the build brief for execution context, the acceptance checklist for verification, and the JSON route for structured constraints.
Minimal build
- Write a task brief with files in scope, non-goals, and acceptance checks.
- Give the agent repo-specific operating instructions.
- Let it inspect before editing.
- Require a focused diff and a real check command.
- Keep commit, push, deploy, and external writes as separate approvals.
Evidence
The current site update itself is a candidate use case: post content, docs, production drift, and build checks had to be kept separate instead of collapsed into one “make website better” prompt.