---
schema_version: "newruntime-agent-readable-v0.2"
type: "project_acceptance_checklist"
stable_id: "project_acceptance_checklist:verifiable-ai-coding-workflow"
project_slug: "verifiable-ai-coding-workflow"
project_title: "Verifiable AI Coding Workflow"
buildability_class: "B2"
verification_status: "locally-reproduced"
proof_artifact_count: 6
buildability_axis_count: 7
replay_evidence_count: 2
project_status: "candidate"
last_verified: "2026-08-06"
record_date: "2026-08-06"
date_kind: "last_verified"
routes: {"build_brief":"https://newruntime.com/projects/verifiable-ai-coding-workflow/build-brief.md","project_json":"https://newruntime.com/projects/verifiable-ai-coding-workflow.json","html":"https://newruntime.com/projects/verifiable-ai-coding-workflow/"}
---

# Acceptance checklist: Verifiable AI Coding Workflow

## Required checks

- The task brief can be read without the original chat and still preserves scope and non-goals.
- The final diff is focused on the named files or the agent explains every extra touched file.
- At least one real check command runs, or the blocker is explicit and reproducible.
- The handoff separates implemented changes, verification evidence, unresolved risks, and approval-gated actions.

## Permission and cleanup contract

| Access | Purpose | Minimum scope | Confirmation | Cleanup |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| read | Inspect source, tests, and existing docs. | Repository files relevant to the named task. | Human names the task and repository before inspection starts. | No cleanup needed beyond deleting temporary local notes. |
| write | Edit local source, tests, or docs. | Focused local file edits in the shared worktree. | Human task request authorizes local edits; commit/push/deploy still need explicit approval. | Use focused reverse patches or follow-up edits if acceptance fails; do not reset unrelated work. |

## Reproducibility notes

- Keep the check command and its result in the final handoff.
- Keep acceptance criteria fixed before implementation so another agent can replay the same task.

## Fixture outputs

- Project JSON contract: dist/projects/verifiable-ai-coding-workflow.json (https://newruntime.com/projects/verifiable-ai-coding-workflow.json). Check: The JSON route exposes proof, handoff, permissions, acceptance checks, and source URLs in one replayable contract.
- Build brief handoff: dist/projects/verifiable-ai-coding-workflow/build-brief.md (https://newruntime.com/projects/verifiable-ai-coding-workflow/build-brief.md). Check: The build brief preserves scope, non-goals, build steps, questions, and approval gates without requiring the original chat.
- Acceptance checklist: dist/projects/verifiable-ai-coding-workflow/acceptance.md (https://newruntime.com/projects/verifiable-ai-coding-workflow/acceptance.md). Check: The checklist separates required checks, permission scopes, reproduction commands, known limits, and failure conditions.
- Clean-room replay fixture: scripts/project-proof-depth-v2-fixture-test.mjs. Check: The 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.mjs. Check: The 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.json (https://newruntime.com/projects/verifiable-ai-coding-workflow.json). Check: A 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.

## Reproduction commands

1. npm run project-proof:replay:test
2. npm run project-proof:replay:prepare
3. npm run validate:content
4. npm run build
5. npm run validate:agent-indexes

## Expected artifacts

- A task brief with scope, acceptance checks, explicit non-goals, and files or modules likely in scope.
- A focused diff plus command evidence for at least one real check or a reproducible blocker.
- A final handoff that separates implemented changes, verification evidence, residual risk, and approval-gated actions.

## Buildability breakdown

| Axis | Level | Evidence | Bottleneck |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| time | high | 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. | Repository setup and test availability still determine the real start time. |
| code burden | medium | The workflow needs a developer-readable task and a focused source edit, but no bespoke application or new service. | A nontechnical owner still needs an agent or engineer to interpret failures. |
| integration burden | high | The replay uses only repository files, Node, a test runner, and the existing agent handoff contract. | Repositories without a runnable local check need an integration step before replay. |
| operational burden | high | The first proof is local and temporary, requires no server, and deletes no shared or production state. | Long-running or deployment tasks would need additional recovery and monitoring rules. |
| permission clarity | high | Read, local-write, commit, push, deploy, and external-write boundaries are named separately in the build brief and acceptance contract. | A broader task can still create ambiguity unless exact files and approvals are fixed before editing. |
| reproducibility | high | 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. | A real external repository replay would test integration burden beyond this bounded fixture. |
| failure recovery | high | The replay records the initial failing check, preserves an unrelated file, performs no remote action, and leaves explicit residual-risk and approval sections. | Production rollback and credential recovery are outside this local proof. |

## Replay evidence

### clean-room-bounded-edit-v1

- Date: 2026-08-06.
- Kind: automated-clean-room.
- Outcome: passed.
- Command: 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-codex-replay-v1

- Date: 2026-08-06.
- Kind: independent-agent.
- Outcome: passed.
- Command: 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.

## Provider scopes

| Provider | Access | Minimum scope | Why needed | Approval gate |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Local repository | write | 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 remote | publish | 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 server | read | 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. |

## Known limits

- 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.

## Failure conditions

- The claimed output cannot be reproduced from the build brief and public/project-local inputs.
- The implementation needs broader permissions than the minimum scopes listed above.
- Private discovery provenance, secrets, raw exports, or unapproved write actions appear in a public artifact.
- The current bottleneck remains unresolved: Requires a repo with runnable checks and a human willing to enforce task boundaries.

## Evidence to collect

- Commands or deterministic checks that were run.
- Changed files or generated artifacts.
- Screenshots or rendered QA only when a visual surface changed.
- Known residual risks and skipped checks.

## Related routes

- build_brief: https://newruntime.com/projects/verifiable-ai-coding-workflow/build-brief.md
- project_json: https://newruntime.com/projects/verifiable-ai-coding-workflow.json
- html: https://newruntime.com/projects/verifiable-ai-coding-workflow/