Frameworks¶
The framework ships eight named practices. Together they cover the AI-assisted software development lifecycle from first prompt to long-term maintenance:
prompt → first draft → review → merge → secure → refactor → document → collaborate
Each practice is an acronym chosen to be memorable on a whiteboard. None of them is novel in isolation; every component appears in some form in older software-engineering literature. What is new is the combination, the sequencing, and the explicit assumption that the code under discussion was co-authored by a model.
Why eight, not three
Three big practices would be easier to remember and harder to apply. The eight here are deliberately scoped so that each one fits in a single training session, a single review checklist, or a single Decision Record. If a practice cannot be taught in 60 minutes, it has been split.
The eight practices¶
-
S.C.A.F.F. Specify, Context, Action, Format, Failure-modes. The prompt structure that gives the model enough to produce useful first drafts.
-
V.E.R.I.F.Y. Validate intent, Examine output, Run tests, Inspect side-effects, Fact-check sources, Yield decision. The protocol the developer runs before accepting AI-generated code.
-
S.E.C.U.R.E. Scan dependencies, Evaluate threat surface, Check secrets, Use least privilege, Review logs, Enforce policy. The security layer of V.E.R.I.F.Y. for every diff that touches sensitive surface area.
-
S.H.I.E.L.D. Secure-by-default, Harden boundaries, Isolate workloads, Encrypt at rest and transit, Log everything, Detect anomalies. The programmatic security stance for AI-assisted systems.
-
C.L.E.A.R. Context, Logic, Edge-cases, Architecture, Readability. Code review reframed for AI-generated diffs, where the reviewer is verifying the human's understanding, not just the code.
-
R.E.F.A.C.T. Recognize smell, Extract intent, Flatten complexity, Add tests first, Change in small steps, Track regressions. The safe pattern for asking AI to refactor existing code.
-
D.O.C.S. Discover audience, Organize by task, Clarify with examples, Sustain through ownership. When AI helps documentation, when it hurts, and how to assign durable ownership.
-
C.O.D.E.S. Charter, Onboard, Decide, Educate, Sync. The team-level practice for adopting AI assistants together rather than as scattered solo behavior.
Where each practice fits in the SDLC¶
The practices are not parallel; they map onto distinct phases of the work.
| SDLC phase | Primary framework | Supporting frameworks |
|---|---|---|
| Prompt the model | S.C.A.F.F. | C.O.D.E.S. (shared library) |
| Receive a first draft | V.E.R.I.F.Y. | S.E.C.U.R.E. (security-sensitive paths) |
| Review the diff | C.L.E.A.R. | V.E.R.I.F.Y., S.E.C.U.R.E. |
| Merge to main | S.E.C.U.R.E. | C.L.E.A.R. (final pass) |
| Operate the system | S.H.I.E.L.D. | Incident response |
| Modernize / clean up | R.E.F.A.C.T. | V.E.R.I.F.Y. |
| Document the result | D.O.C.S. | C.O.D.E.S. (assigning owners) |
| Spread the practice | C.O.D.E.S. | All of the above |
Read top-down for the per-change loop. Read S.H.I.E.L.D. and C.O.D.E.S. as the standing posture: the platform conditions and team conditions that make the per-change loop possible.
How the practices reinforce each other¶
graph LR
SC[S.C.A.F.F.<br/>prompt] --> VR[V.E.R.I.F.Y.<br/>verify]
VR --> SE[S.E.C.U.R.E.<br/>security per change]
VR --> CL[C.L.E.A.R.<br/>review]
SE --> CL
CL --> RF[R.E.F.A.C.T.<br/>refactor when needed]
CL --> DC[D.O.C.S.<br/>document]
SH[S.H.I.E.L.D.<br/>standing security]
CO[C.O.D.E.S.<br/>standing team practice]
CO -.- SC
CO -.- CL
SH -.- SE
SH -.- VR
Solid arrows are per-change flow. Dotted lines are the standing practices that hold the per-change flow together.
Sizing guidance¶
Sizing guide
- Small (< 50 people). Adopt S.C.A.F.F. and C.L.E.A.R. first. They produce immediate quality lift with the lowest ceremony. Fold S.E.C.U.R.E. into your existing review checklist rather than running it as a separate gate. Skip S.H.I.E.L.D. as a formal program; pick its highest-value control (egress allow-listing) and run it.
- Mid (50–500). Add S.E.C.U.R.E. and S.H.I.E.L.D. once you have more than one team using AI assistants in earnest. C.O.D.E.S. becomes load-bearing here; without it, every team reinvents prompt patterns.
- Enterprise (500+). All eight practices, with D.O.C.S. and C.O.D.E.S. elevated to programs (named owners, recurring cadence, training curriculum). R.E.F.A.C.T. is essential for legacy modernization at this size.
- Regulated. All eight practices are required, not optional. S.E.C.U.R.E. and S.H.I.E.L.D. tie into the regulatory mapping. Audit evidence flows from V.E.R.I.F.Y. and C.L.E.A.R. into the audit trail.
How a practice page is structured¶
Every framework page on this site uses the same shape:
- What it is. One paragraph, the acronym expanded.
- When to use it. Which SDLC phase, which risk tiers.
- The acronym in detail. One section per letter, with worked examples where useful.
- Sizing guidance. Small, Mid, Enterprise, Regulated.
- Cross-links to the worksheets, governance, and evidence pages that depend on or extend the practice.
- Anti-patterns. Three to five things to avoid, in a
!!! dangerblock.
Where to start reading¶
- New to the framework: read S.C.A.F.F. and V.E.R.I.F.Y. in that order. They are the per-change spine.
- Security-led adoption: read S.H.I.E.L.D. first (standing posture), then S.E.C.U.R.E. (per-change controls).
- Engineering-manager-led adoption: start with C.O.D.E.S. to get the team rhythm in place, then layer the per-change practices.
How the frameworks tie back to the rest of the site¶
| Framework | Anchored worksheet | Anchored governance |
|---|---|---|
| S.C.A.F.F. | Pilot scope | AUP |
| V.E.R.I.F.Y. | SDLC mapping | Risk classification |
| S.E.C.U.R.E. | Incident tabletop | Incident response |
| S.H.I.E.L.D. | Incident tabletop | Data handling |
| C.L.E.A.R. | Pilot retrospective | RACI |
| R.E.F.A.C.T. | Pilot scope | Risk classification |
| D.O.C.S. | Decision record | Audit trail |
| C.O.D.E.S. | Training needs, Leadership charter | RACI |
Anti-patterns¶
Don't
- Don't adopt all eight at once. Adoption that tries to land eight practices in a quarter lands none of them. Sequence according to the sizing guide above.
- Don't rename the acronyms to fit a tool. They are intentionally vendor-neutral. If a vendor's marketing aligns to one of them, that is convenient; if it does not, the framework is not the bug.
- Don't skip C.O.D.E.S. on the assumption that "we already do teamwork." AI assistants change how teams interact in ways that pre-existing rituals were not designed to handle.
- Don't treat S.H.I.E.L.D. as a one-time setup. It is a standing posture. Egress allow-lists, sandbox boundaries, and anomaly detection drift the moment they are not maintained.
Next¶
- S.C.A.F.F. prompt structure: the foundation.
- Adoption roadmap: when to adopt which practice.
- Evidence pack: why these practices exist.