The AI Design Authority
We are at a turning 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 reside (IDE or CLI). But that is not the right question.
If we embrace AI as “Vibe Coders” – stating our intent and letting AI handle the execution – we will create an enormous stream of new software. A swarm of AI agents can generate more code in one minute than a senior developer can review in a week. Humans have become the bottleneck.
The solution is not anymore people. The solution is an AI Design Governance.
From Craftsman to Factory Director
Traditionally, the “Design Authority” is a group of architects who meet once a week or month to approve or reject a design. In a world of rapid AI development that model is hopelessly outdated. It is too slow and too reactive.
If we switch to “Disposable Code” – software that we do not refactor endlessly, but discard and regenerate whenever the requirements change – our role changes fundamentally. We are no longer bricklayers laying stones 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 its way through to reach production. This process does not replace human code review with nothing, but with something better.
It operates in three layers:
1. The Executive Power (Generation)
We do not ask a single AI for a solution; we ask three. We have Gemini 3, GPT-5, and an open-source model such as Llama work on the same problem in parallel. This prevents tunnel vision and breaks through the “laziness” that LLMs sometimes suffer from. This approach is also scientifically researched and demonstrates that you can prevent AI hallucinations and build very long chains without errors
2. The Hard Filter (The Law)
There is no room for debate 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 (the AI can manipulate that); we test whether the system does what it is supposed to do from the outside. Does the test fail? Straight into the trash.
3. The Soft Filter (The AI Jury)
This is the real innovation. The remaining solutions are submitted 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 weighs up: “Solution A is faster, but Solution B is more secure and aligns better with our microservices architecture.”
The winner goes into production.
The Separation of Powers in Software
This model enforces a separation of powers that is missing from many teams.
- The Legislative Power (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 what we build, who builds it, how, and why. - The Executive Power (The Coding Agents): They carry out the work. Quickly, cheaply, and under the auspices of human developers.
- The Judicial Power (The Design Authority): An independent AI layer that checks 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 best: systems thinking. Finding the truth. Structure and decision-making.
The question is not whether AI can write our code. That issue has already been settled. Code will largely become a disposable product.
The question is: Do you dare to relinquish control over code in order to regain control over quality ?
let me know
