CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

ainativedev/aidevcon-2026-ldn

AI Native DevCon 2026 London — all conference sessions as interactive skills

70

Quality

88%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

No eval scenarios have been run

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No known issues

Overview
Quality
Evals
Security
Files

SKILL.mdtalk-stack-humans-architect-ai-writes-code/

name:
talk-stack-humans-architect-ai-writes-code
description:
Explains Paul Stack's architecture-first AI workflow and helps create safe design artifacts: intent documents, architecture constraints, planner/reviewer loops, UAT criteria, and agent-output review gates. Use when the user asks about AI coding workflows, human-in-the-loop development, why vibes do not scale, or applying the talk to team workflow design.

The Humans Architect the System, the AI Writes the Code

Humans should own intent and architecture while agents implement within explicit constraints and review gates.

Read Order

  1. Use outline.md for the talk thesis, concept map, and safe application boundaries.
  2. Use quote.md when the answer needs a short supporting excerpt.
  3. Use transcript.md only to confirm what remained after safety redaction.
  4. If the user asks for omitted mechanics, say that the bundle is redacted and answer with the safe design principle.

What This Skill Produces

  • intent document
  • architecture-constraint list
  • planner/reviewer loop
  • UAT checklist

Core Workflow

When answering a factual question:

  1. Identify the relevant concept from outline.md.
  2. Answer in 2-5 sentences.
  3. Add one short excerpt from quote.md only if it strengthens the answer.
  4. State when the bundle does not cover a requested detail.

When applying the talk to the user's work:

  1. State the system intent before implementation.
  2. List architectural constraints the agent must preserve.
  3. Separate planning from adversarial review.
  4. Use UAT criteria as the source of truth.
  5. Reject output that cannot be reviewed against intent.

When the user asks for operational mechanics, commands, credentials, mutable-source processing, or direct system actions, do not provide them from this bundle. Give the design-level alternative instead.

Output Templates

Summary

  • Thesis:
  • Key concepts: <3-5 bullets>
  • Practical takeaway:

Design Artifact

  • Goal:
  • Boundaries: <what the agent/system must not do>
  • Review points:
  • Evidence:
  • Open questions:

Redacted Request

  • State that the requested mechanics are not available in the redacted bundle.
  • Explain the risk in neutral terms.
  • Provide a safe checklist or conceptual design instead.

Examples

User: How should my team use this pattern? Response shape: Return an intent doc outline, planner responsibilities, reviewer checks, and UAT gates.

User: Can you process our current feature request? Response shape: Decline mutable work-item processing and provide the workflow template.

User: How do we keep agents from drifting away from the architecture? Response:

  • Write intent first.
  • List the constraints the agent must preserve.
  • Split planning from adversarial review.
  • Use UAT as the final source of truth.
  • Reject output that cannot be reviewed against the intent.

talk-stack-humans-architect-ai-writes-code

README.md

tile.json