Specifying AI-SDLC Processes: A Protocol Language for Human-Agent Boundaries
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Agent threats, guardrails and governance
Abstract (arXiv)
AI agents now act as first-class members of the software development lifecycle, but the instruments teams use to direct them enforce nothing: process encoded in prompts is flexible but unenforceable, while workflow formalisms are enforceable but do not model autonomous agents. We propose a domain-specific language for specifying AI-SDLC processes as protocols, with formal abstract syntax, well-formedness conditions, operational semantics, and enforcement invariants, organised around a separation of policy (declared intent) from mechanism (structural enforcement). We prove that any well-formed protocol maintains its invariants on every execution trace, closed under Kleene composition of orchestration loops: protocol steps cannot be skipped, by construction. A failure-rate analysis derives two consequences: structural enforcement bounds silent failure while converting the remainder into visible, audited stalls, and the benefit carries a capability floor. We validate the design in simulation and end-to-end on SWE-bench Verified, where an identical bug-fix methodology yields no improvement delivered as prose instructions, but a significant, replicated 14-22 point gain when executed as a validated, self-correcting process; an ablation attributes the gain to the executed process itself, and the capability floor appears where the model predicts it. As foundation models converge, the durable engineering asset is the formally specified, executable process.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Agent threats, guardrails and governance, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 11 of its 43 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 24 May 2026.
Builds on
11 of 43 references.
Closest ancestors · 1
Same direction, newest first
Other references · 10
- 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,626
- 2023SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?cited by 3,373
- 2023AutoGen: Enabling Next-Gen LLM Applications via Multi-Agent Conversationcited by 1,988
- 2023MetaGPT: Meta Programming for A Multi-Agent Collaborative Frameworkcited by 1,808
- 2023Large Language Models Cannot Self-Correct Reasoning Yetcited by 1,017
- 2021Asleep at the Keyboard? Assessing the Security of GitHub Copilot's Code Contributionscited by 431
- 2025Demonstrating specification gaming in reasoning modelscited by 56
- 2025FlowAgent: Achieving Compliance and Flexibility for Workflow Agentscited by 19
- 2024Towards Modeling Human-Agentic Collaborative Workflows: A BPMN Extensioncited by 3
- 2022A Capability-based Distributed Authorization System to Enforce Context-aware Permission Sequencescited by 1
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026SDAD: Spec-Driven Agentic Development for the AI-Native SDLC
- 2026Agent Behavioral Contracts: Formal Specification and Runtime Enforcement for Reliable Autonomous AI Agents
- 2026Authenticated Workflows: A Systems Approach to Protecting Agentic AI
- 2026Rethinking Software Engineering for Agentic AI Systems
- 2026Runtime Governance for AI Agents: Policies on Paths
- 2026Bridging Protocol and Production: Design Patterns for Deploying AI Agents with Model Context Protocol
- 2026XFlow: An Executable Protocol Programming System for Reliable Multi-Agent Workflows
- 2026Harness as an Asset: Enforcing Determinism via the Convergent AI Agent Framework (CAAF)