LinkedIn post by **Rakesh Gohel** (builder at **JUTEQ**, governance and proof infrastructure for agents) published around **October 25, 2026**, ~250 words, accompanied by an **infographic** credited to *@rakeshgohel01*. He distinguishes three graphs an agent needs to decide, using the example *"Rebook this passenger"*.
#knowledge graph#knowledge graph#context graph
Rakesh Gohel — builder chez JUTEQ (gouvernance et infrastructure de preuve pour agents IA) ; LinkedIn · newsletter rakeshgohel.substack.com.
A collective article by seven authors (**Zach Davis**, **Michelle Gill**, **Elisabeth Hendrickson**, **Angie Jones**, **Sha Ma**, **Randy Shoup**, **James Wickett**), published in the *Enterprise Technology Leadership Journal* by **IT Revolution** (fall 2026, vol. 3, no. 2), under a CC BY-NC-SA license. About **7,500 words**, titled *« Toward a Pattern Language for Code Reviews in the Age of Agentic AI »*. **(A)** Framing: code review is defined as an examination by a non-author entity leading to an action; empirical studies (Microsoft 2013, Mäntylä 2009, Beller 2014) show that its value lies mainly in maintainability and knowledge sharing, less in functional defect detection. **(B)** Three conditions for taking the human out of the critical path: maximal deterministic validation, **risk-graded** review, a **durable trace** of every agent decision; *« no human in the loop »* is a configuration choice, not a default. **(C)** Nine composable patterns, presented as a toolbox rather than a maturity ladder: small changes, Shift Left, design for verification, deterministic engineering practices, context engineering, continuous quality loop, adversarial LLM review, multi-agent reviews, specification-driven development. **(D)** Three case studies: **Block**, **Cloudflare** (131,246 reviews across 48,095 PRs in one month, 1.2 findings per review), **DryRun Security**. Extends the corpus's notes on context engineering and agent-assisted code review.
#agentic code review#code review#pattern language
Zach Davis (LaunchDarkly) · Michelle Gill (Engineered by AI) · Elisabeth Hendrickson (Curious Duck) · Angie Jones (Agentic AI Foundation) · Sha Ma (Topogy) · Randy Shoup (CircleCI) · James Wickett (DryRun Security) ; article collectif · IT Revolution.
Long-form guide from **Anthropic** by **Louis Claxton** (Applied AI team), published on **August 21, 2026** on the claude.com blog: a stated **40-minute** read, roughly **64,000 characters**, presented as a collection of *plays* drawn from the team's work with its clients. (A) The diagnosis: with code no longer the bottleneck, it shifts to the stages on either side of the build (plan, review/test, deploy), line-by-line controls stop holding once the agent writes most of the diff, and governance cost rises as exceptions still route through periodic committees. (B) The response: six stages (Plan, Design, Build, Test, Deploy, Maintain) organized as a **loop** rather than a chain, each ending with a **committed artifact** that the next stage reads — `intent.md`, `spec.md`, `plan.md`, the diff and its tests, the PR and its findings, the incident record. (1) Institutional knowledge becomes versioned files: `CLAUDE.md`, skills, `REVIEW.md`, `bands.yaml`. (2) Governance splits into two layers, with the skill positioned as an advisory control and the hook as the deterministic layer behind it. Separation of duties is set as an invariant — the agent that writes the code cannot approve it — and the piece closes on *"The loop keeps running. Human judgement stays above it."* The corpus already holds [[clinton-anthropic-secure-ai-native-sdlc-2026-07-21]] on the security side of the same cycle, and [[hingel-augment-how-ai-changes-sdlc-six-stages-2026-06-08]] on the same six-stage breakdown as seen by a competitor.
#AI-native SDLC#software development lifecycle#plays
Louis Claxton (Anthropic, équipe Applied AI) · sur le blog claude.com ; contributions créditées à Jim Blackhurst · Will Steuk et Jamal Arif.