LogicSRC standards surface
++ The Agentic Software Development Lifecycle: how software gets built when most of the + work is done by agents running in parallel, and CI/CD is the only gate that matters. +
++ The traditional SDLC assumes the scarce resource is engineering time, so it spends process + on deciding whether each change is worth building. When agents write the code, engineering + time stops being scarce and two other things become scarce instead:{" "} + human attention and trunk stability. ASDLC is what a + lifecycle looks like when you optimise for those two. +
++ Status: 0.1. A description of a practice already in production, published + so others can copy it, not a proposal. +
+The last row carries the most weight. Everything else follows from it.
+| + | SDLC | +ASDLC | +
|---|---|---|
| + {label} + | +{before} | +{after} | +
+ Make a release cheap enough that shipping four times in a day is unremarkable, and the + rest of the table follows. +
+Correct returns to fan-out. The loop is the point.
+{`Frame → Fan out → Gate locally → Merge → Release → Verify live → Correct → Ratchet → Promote
+ ↑ ↓
+ └────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘`}
+ What separates this from shipping carelessly and calling it a methodology.
++ Testing in production is only defensible if production failures are one-time events. So + every escape becomes a permanent automated check before the incident is closed. Not a note + in a document: a program that fails, in CI or in the local gate, when the bug comes back. +
++ And the check itself has to be checked. The test for a ratchet is whether it actually fails + when you reintroduce the bug, which must be confirmed rather than assumed. A fix without a + ratchet is how the same class of bug ships three times. +
+Skip these and you do not have ASDLC, you have moving fast.
+Each level includes the ones below it.
++ Level 3 is the claim that matters, and the only one that requires evidence rather than + intent. +
+DiskPush, an rsync desktop and CLI, on one working day. All of it public in the repo.
++ Horizontal scale. Eight agent worktrees open on one checkout at once, + covering unrelated concerns: SSH auth discovery, symlink handling, fleet runs across + servers, the desktop content security policy, file operations, connection defaults and + file list sorting. None waited on another. +
+
+ Cadence. Four releases reached users between 08:53 and 14:56 UTC:{" "}
+ v0.2.17, v0.3.0,{" "}
+ v0.4.0 and v0.5.0, each carrying one
+ merged concern and shipping desktop and CLI artifacts.
+
+ The gate refusing. The release script checks every precondition before it + writes anything: a dirty tree, a branch that is not trunk, a tag that exists, a version + that does not sort above the newest release, and any workspace package missing from its + manifest list. That last guard exists because a package was added and silently left behind + at an old version, release after release, with nothing failing. +
+
+ Test in prod, then ratchet. The desktop shipped a visibly broken window
+ across three releases, and each layer was only visible in production. v0.2.0 rendered
+ unstyled: the bundle loaded over file:// and every root-absolute
+ asset resolved against the filesystem root and 404ed. v0.2.1 fixed the assets and rendered
+ blank instead, because the export carries its payload in inline scripts and the window sent{" "}
+ script-src 'self', refusing all seven. That was
+ invisible before only because nothing had run at all. v0.2.2 hashed the inline scripts into
+ the policy.
+
+ No local harness could have caught the first bug: a static server resolves absolute paths
+ correctly by construction, so the bug only exists under file://.
+ The ratchet is one command that now guards all three layers, and each guard was confirmed
+ to fail when its bug is reintroduced.
+