Specifying AI-SDLC Processes: A Protocol Language for Human-Agent Boundaries

AI agents are evolving from answer engines into persistent teams that use tools, delegate work, learn from experience, and modify the artifacts that shape their future behavior. The defining question for deployment is no longer merely what agents can do, but who controls what they are allowed to become. We introduce logos, a pluggable layer for self-evolution and governance that strengthens existing multiagent frameworks rather than replacing them. logos compiles heterogeneous multimodal inputs, including documents, images, audio, tables, databases, APIs, and human instructions into versioned agent packs containing agents, tools, knowledge, tests, permissions, and policies. During operation, it transforms agent activity into portable, auditable event traces and applies fail-closed verification across frameworks and backends. Every learned prompt, memory, skill, tool, role, or workflow remains an untrusted release candidate until held-out execution evidence, human-controlled policy, and explicit authorization permit its promotion. This architecture enables "verifiable human-agent loop engineering": agents can act, ask, learn, and propose improvements, while humans can steer objectives, permissions, approvals, and irreversible actions without interrupting continuous operation. logos provides a living logic for accountable automation. Agents may evolve at machine speed, but only evidence and human authority can close the loop.

AI tools for programming are no longer just autocomplete or chat assistants: they organize themselves as development frameworks, with process, roles, artifacts and verification. Recent surveys map agents and LLMs for software engineering, but a study centered on the operational frameworks that turn these capabilities into process is missing. We ran a directed search of primary sources, with a functional inclusion criterion and traction measurement, and selected six frameworks: GitHub Spec Kit, OpenSpec, BMAD Method, Get Shit Done (GSD), Spec Kitty and Reversa. Each attacks AI development through a different path: spec-driven development in full and lightweight variants, agent-driven agile planning, context engineering over the agent, worktree isolation and review, and recovery of operational specifications from legacy systems. Our central contribution is a six-dimension process taxonomy: specification, context, roles, execution, validation and portability, with a scoring rubric that turns it into a replicable instrument. We apply it to the six frameworks and an out-of-sample case, Spec-Flow. Two results stand out. Among frameworks that already adopt some process there is convergence: the isolated prompt loses centrality, and persistent artifacts, work contracts, traceability and human review become mechanisms that reduce ambiguity and coordinate agents. And no framework strongly covers all six dimensions, exposing a structural trade-off between process depth and portability across agents. We also found recurring risks: drift between specification and code, excessive trust in generated artifacts, fragility of community extensions, platform dependence and a lack of benchmarks for the complete process. We close with a research agenda for empirical evaluation, focused on intermediate-quality metrics, context governance, installation security and reproducibility.

Agentic AI systems do not just predict or recommend; they plan, maintain state, and act in external environments with varying degrees of autonomy. This changes the requirements engineering problem in a specific and under-addressed way: it introduces what we call the delegated-autonomy boundary -- the set of decisions about what may be delegated to the system, under what graduated authority, with what oversight, and how control is returned. Current practices bury these decisions inside prompts, tool schemas, and runtime policies, even though they are requirements-level commitments. This paper proposes two complementary artifacts. First, an Agency Justification Record (AJR) helps teams decide when an agent is warranted over simpler alternatives. Second, an Agentic Delegation Policy (ADP) captures what must be specified for safe and effective development: purpose, authority, information, coordination, assurance, and evolution. Crucially, authority in the ADP is modelled as graduated, i.e., a tiered structure. We illustrate the framework with two contrasting examples: a safety-critical hospital discharge coordination agent and an automated code review agent.