Teams adopted AI coding tools, saw short-term velocity spikes, and then paid the verification tax later in debugging, regressions, and production incidents.

The gap is not generation. The gap is proof. Evidence-Driven Development turns that gap into a repeatable workflow with explicit gates.

The Loop

The model is simple: define intent, prove the gap, capture baseline, implement, prove pass, capture result, and verify quality dimensions before review.

The critical constraint is sequence. Steps before implementation create reliability; steps after implementation create trust.

| Phase | What happens | Why it matters | | --- | --- | --- | | Document | Write what done means before implementation. | Prevents drifting requirements and vague success criteria. | | Test: Fail | Define and run tests that prove the gap exists. | Confirms you are testing behavior, not assumptions. | | Capture: Before | Record baseline outputs before touching implementation. | Provides non-negotiable proof for reviewers and future audits. | | Implement | Apply the change with AI assistance under constraints. | Execution stays fast while the bar remains human-defined. | | Test: Pass | Run targeted tests and confirm behavior now passes. | Validates the change solves the exact acceptance criteria. | | Capture: After | Collect equivalent post-change artifacts. | Enables clear before/after comparison. | | Verify | Audit security, accessibility, performance, docs, and drift. | Catches failure modes tests alone miss. | | Review | Human reviewer accepts or rejects based on evidence. | Keeps accountability with engineers, not prompts. |

:::graphic name: ImplementationLoopDiagram caption: The implementation loop: human-defined constraints, AI-assisted execution. :::

Before Evidence Is Irreversible in Practice

Teams can theoretically reconstruct a baseline after implementation starts, but almost nobody does. Momentum shifts to fixing forward.

That is why missing before-evidence is treated as a reset condition in disciplined loops.

:::graphic name: MaturityLadder caption: Maturity model: ad-hoc to audit-verified engineering. :::

Audit: deset dimenzí

The Audit: Ten Dimensions

| Dimension | What it catches | | --- | --- | | Build | Compilation, lint, and suite integrity | | Telemetry | PII leaks and unsafe logging payloads | | Accessibility | Landmarks, keyboard flow, heading hierarchy | | Security | Secrets, injection risk, dependency flaws | | Performance | N+1 paths, unbounded loops, memory leaks | | Documentation | Spec and implementation drift | | Test Coverage | Behavior changes without matching tests | | TODO Debt | Skipped follow-ups and unresolved placeholders | | Error Handling | Swallowed errors and leaked internals | | AI Verbosity | Redundant comments and unnecessary abstractions |

:::graphic name: AuditRadarChart caption: Audit posture before and after evidence-driven checks. :::

Příklady důkazů podle domény

The Burden of Proof in Pull Requests