Autonomous Engineering Workflow Catalog
Turn “use agents for engineering” into a portfolio of explicit, governable workflow products.
A focused view of boundaries, contracts, state, authority, failure paths, and tradeoffs drawn from this chapter.
Reconstruct and defend this chapter’s architecture.
Reconstruct the architecture, name each boundary, and defend the tradeoffs.
Open the source exercise
Choose three workflows and map trigger, intent owner, plan, authority, evidence, production observation, rollback, metrics, and promotion criteria. Show which platform components are shared and which policies remain workflow-specific.
4. Tradeoffs and alternatives
A broad generic workflow reduces configuration and hides important differences. Many narrow workflows improve control and create maintenance overhead. Start with a small catalog whose entries share common runtime contracts but retain distinct acceptance and risk policy.
Automated intake increases responsiveness and can flood the system with low-value work. Require admission, deduplication, ownership, priority policy, and capacity budgets before automatic selection.
5. Current Mission Control Implementation
The current curriculum deeply specifies the governed issue-to-pull-request path and provides domain, orchestration, evidence, release, feedback, and learning primitives that other workflows can reuse.
It does not yet publish full contracts, labs, maturity evidence, and operating metrics for the eight workflow classes above. The current golden path should therefore be described as the first workflow product, not proof of the entire portfolio.
Review this chapter.
Challenge a claim, boundary, missing failure mode, unclear term, or unsupported evidence statement.
- Claim
- Boundary
- Failure
- Evidence