Sections in this lesson

Agentic SDLC: Lifecycle & Roles

Define responsibility and evidence at every handoff, from a problem statement to an authorized release.

Reviewed: · Content owner: Interview Preparator

What you will learn

  • Assign accountable owners independently of the agent doing the work.
  • Separate task completion, review readiness and release authorization.
  • Identify missing evidence at a handoff.

Before you start

The flow

  1. 1.Problem owner
  2. 2.Spec
  3. 3.Plan
  4. 4.Implementation
  5. 5.Verification
  6. 6.Human review
  7. 7.Release decision

One proposed practice, several responsibilities

This curriculum proposes a workflow; agentic SDLC is not a single universally adopted process standard. An agent can draft a spec, propose a plan, edit code and run checks. A human owns the problem, acceptance and the consequences of releasing the change.

Roles describe authority, not the number of chat windows. A second agent can challenge a plan but cannot supply the independent human approval required by this example. Use a named owner for each handoff instead of assuming the last tool caller is accountable.

Handoffs need inspectable artifacts

At the spec gate, hand over acceptance criteria, non-goals and risks. At implementation, include a bounded diff, commands, test evidence and unresolved questions. At review, bind the decision to the actual source/artifact digest so later edits invalidate the approval.

For RAG-SELECT-001, implementation success means source selection cannot widen tenant access and empty evidence never reaches generation. A passing build alone does not establish either property; targeted unit and real database checks do.

Escalation and stopping

Stop and request a domain decision when requirements conflict, a migration could lose data, or new authority is required. A failed check is an investigation input, not permission to delete the assertion or weaken a security control.

The release owner checks rollback readiness and platform approval controls. This repository supplies local evidence and a pending review record; it does not represent a deployed release or an actual independent human approval.

Try it

lifecycle.json
json
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
{
  "schemaVersion": 1,
  "practice": "proposed-teaching-workflow-not-universal-standard",
  "roles": [
    {"stage":"spec", "agent":"draft acceptance and risks", "human":"own scope and acceptance", "artifact":"spec.md"},
    {"stage":"plan", "agent":"map dependencies and propose small tasks", "human":"resolve design tradeoffs", "artifact":"adr-001.md"},
    {"stage":"implement", "agent":"edit and explain a bounded diff", "human":"own repository policy", "artifact":"source bundle"},
    {"stage":"verify", "agent":"run checks and expose failures", "human":"judge evidence coverage", "artifact":"evidence.json"},
    {"stage":"review", "agent":"summarize remaining risks", "human":"independently approve exact artifact", "artifact":"review.json (pending)"},
    {"stage":"release", "agent":"prepare release/rollback evidence", "human":"authorize deployment with platform controls", "artifact":"not deployed"}
  ]
}

Source: examples/agentic-sdlc/lifecycle.json. Follow examples/agentic-sdlc/README.md to run the case. This is teaching evidence; human release review remains pending.

Interview questions

How would you demonstrate: Assign accountable owners independently of the agent doing the work.

Roles describe authority, not the number of chat windows. A second agent can challenge a plan but cannot supply the independent human approval required by this example. Use a named owner for each handoff instead of assuming the last tool caller is accountable.

How would you demonstrate: Separate task completion, review readiness and release authorization.

For RAG-SELECT-001, implementation success means source selection cannot widen tenant access and empty evidence never reaches generation. A passing build alone does not establish either property; targeted unit and real database checks do.

How would you demonstrate: Identify missing evidence at a handoff.

The release owner checks rollback readiness and platform approval controls. This repository supplies local evidence and a pending review record; it does not represent a deployed release or an actual independent human approval.

Practice

Apply this stage to RAG-SELECT-001 and prepare the handoff for the next owner.

Check your solution

  • Reference one observable acceptance case.
  • Include exact files, commands and remaining risks.
  • Keep review pending until independent approval of the unchanged candidate.

Official references

Continue learning

Category sequence

Agentic SDLC

Lesson 1 / 6

Was this lesson useful?

Change notes: 2026-10-30: Phase 4, source-bound delivery case.