ai-workflowAnswer last reviewed July 2026

Imagine you're writing your team's policy for AI-assisted development. What goes in it?

A strong answer designs real policy, ownership, gates, and disclosure, and can defend it against a ban on one side and a free-for-all on the other

What an AI-prepared candidate might say

The policy I'd write is basically, assistants are allowed and honestly encouraged, but the engineer is fully responsible for anything they submit. The AI wrote it is never an excuse. All code goes through the same review process regardless of where it came from, though reviewers should know when a change is heavily AI-generated so they can review accordingly. Nothing sensitive goes into prompts, so no secrets, no customer data, and only approved tools with the right data-handling agreements in place. Tests and CI checks apply to everything equally. And for the genuinely sensitive areas like security and payments, a senior engineer stays closely involved rather than leaving the work to generation. It mostly boils down to one idea, I think. Use the productivity, and keep the accountability with humans.

Senior
Locked

The four clauses that do all the work, merge ownership, identical gates, disclosure that actually changes reviewer behavior, and the named paths that demand a human author.

Unlock the depth
Staff
Locked

Policy run as a control system, measuring outcomes instead of usage, watching the exception budget for a misfitted rule, and keeping postmortem language pointed at humans.

Unlock the depth
Follow-up chain
Imagine you're writing your team's policy for AI-assisted development. What goes in it? | NodeBook