Move from AI-assisted coding to controlled delivery.
Governed Agentic Software Delivery is a research-stage GZP workflow for taking an agreed software change through preparation, review and a controlled release decision. AI may support implementation and evidence gathering within a defined scope. People retain authority over requirements, acceptance and release, so generated code is assessed against the intended outcome before production use.
Discuss your delivery workflowWhere work slows down
Use these patterns to identify what is happening in your own operation.
- Ambiguous requirements that lead to repeated rework
- Changes moving ahead without clear acceptance criteria
- Reviewers spending time reconstructing what changed and why
- Unclear ownership of the decision to release
A clear path through the work
- 01
Scope
Agree one change, its boundaries and acceptance criteria.
- 02
Prepare
Use AI assistance to develop a reviewable change within that scope.
- 03
Validate
Check the proposed result and organise the evidence for review.
- 04
Authorise delivery
Let the responsible person decide whether the change is ready for the agreed next environment.
AI interprets. Rules decide. Humans retain authority.
Messy work. Controlled execution. Measurable outcomes.
- 01Capture
- 02Interpret
- 03Validate
- 04Authorise
- 05Complete
One workflow. A boundary you can test.
Begin with one small, reversible change in a non-production environment. A suitable starting point has an available technical reviewer, clear acceptance criteria and an agreed release owner.
Make the improvement observable
Agree a representative baseline and acceptance criteria before a pilot. Compare the same scope and include the effort needed to review exceptions.
- Time to a reviewable change
- Review and rework effort
- Acceptance-check pass rate
- Defects found after review
- Time waiting for approval
- Accepted changes per delivery cycle
What to know before a pilot
What is governed agentic software delivery?
It is an approach to AI-assisted software work that keeps scope, validation evidence and human release authority explicit throughout the delivery process.
Does AI deploy changes without approval?
That is not the proposed starting point. A research-stage pilot prepares reviewable changes; production release remains subject to the agreed authority and acceptance checks.
Does it replace developers or technical review?
No. Developers and reviewers remain responsible for engineering judgement, acceptance and the decision to release. AI assistance supports bounded parts of the work.
What is a suitable first pilot?
One small change in a non-production environment, with known acceptance criteria and a named reviewer. Scope and tool access are agreed before work starts.
Research-stage workflow. This page describes a workflow pattern being evaluated by GZP. Actual scope, integrations, controls and measurable outcomes depend on the customer workflow and pilot evidence.
Bring one software change worth testing.
Prepare a short summary of scope, acceptance criteria, review ownership, release authority and current delivery effort.