The AI Design Authority
We are at a tipping point in software development. The discussion is often about which whether AI writes the best code (Claude vs. ChatGPT) or where where that AI should live (IDE or CLI). But that is not the right question.
The problem is not the generation of code. It is the validation of it.
If we embrace AI as “Vibe Coders” – where we provide the intent and the AI handles the execution – we create a huge stream of new software. A swarm of AI agents can generate in one minute more code than a senior developer can review in a week. Humans have become the bottleneck.
The solution is not more people. The solution is an AI Design Authority.
From Craftsman to Factory Director
Traditionally, the "Design Authority" is a small group of architects who meet weekly or monthly to approve or reject a design. In a world of high-velocity AI development that model is hopelessly outdated. It is too slow and too reactive.
If we switch to "Disposable Code" — software we don't endlessly refactor but throw away and regenerate when requirements change — our role changes fundamentally. We're no longer masons laying bricks one by one. We are the architects of the factory that prints the walls.
But who checks whether those walls are straight?
The "Gauntlet": An automated trial by fire
An AI Design Authority is not a person, but a pipeline. A "Gauntlet" that every line of generated code must fight through to reach production. This process does not replace the human code review with nothing, but with something better.
It works in three layers:
1. The Executive Power (The Generation)
We don't ask one AI for a solution, we ask three. We have Gemini 3, GPT-5 and an open-source model (such as Llama) work in parallel on the same problem. This prevents tunnel vision and breaks the "laziness" that LLMs sometimes suffer from. This approach is also scientifically researched and demonstrates that you can prevent AI hallucination and build very long chains without errors
2. The Hard Filter (The Law)
There is no room for discussion here. Code must compile. Linters must not complain. And crucially: the Black Box Tests must pass. We do not test whether the function works internally (that could be manipulated by the AI); we test whether the system behaves correctly from the outside. Fails the test? Straight to the trash.
3. The Soft Filter (The AI Jury)
This is the real innovation. The remaining solutions are presented to a specialized "Voting AI." This agent does not write code, but reads code. It is trained on our architectural principles, security requirements (OWASP, ISO) and compliance rules (EU AI Act).
It votes: "Solution A is faster, but Solution B is safer and aligns better with our microservices architecture."
The winner goes into production.
The Separation of Powers of Software
This model enforces a separation of powers that is missing in many teams.
- The Legislative Branch (The Architect): The Architect writes the "Constitution": the prompts, the architecture documents (
project-description.md, rules.md, skills.md en principles.md), the hard requirements. The architect determines what we build, who builds it, how and why. - The Executive Branch (The Coding Agents): They execute. Fast, cheap and under the auspices of human developers.
- The Judicial Branch (The Design Authority): An independent AI layer that verifies compliance with the law.
Conclusion: The architect's new role
It frees us from the tyranny of syntax errors and lets us focus on what we do well: systems thinking. Truth-finding. Structure and decision-making.
The question is not whether AI can write our code. That matter has already been settled. Code will largely become a disposable product.
The question is: Do you dare to give up control of the code to let go, thereby regaining control over the quality to regain?
let me know
