Agentic Review Workflows
Engineering workflow automation that prepares the review rather than performing it. Agents raise findings with the clause and the evidence attached; the engineer rules on each one.
The problem
Discipline reviewers are not slow and they are not careless. There are simply more deliverables than there are hours, and the scarce resource is senior judgement rather than effort.
Most of a review is spent locating the clause, checking it still applies and assembling the evidence. The judgement itself takes a fraction of the time, and it is the only part that needs the engineer.
A workflow in which software prepares a decision and a person makes it. The agent does the locating, comparing and assembling. The ruling stays with the engineer.
It is not an autonomous workflow. Nothing closes without a named person deciding it should.
The boundary
Engineering review automation is only acceptable if the line is drawn somewhere explicit. Human in the loop is not a reassurance here, it is the shape of the workflow, and the line does not move.
Everything up to the point of judgement.
Judgement, and accountability for it.
The workflow
Four states, with a named actor at each one. A finding cannot skip a state, and it cannot close without an engineer.
The check runs and the finding is created with its clause, its evidence and a proposed severity.
AGENTAssigned to the discipline that owns the deliverable, so it reaches someone qualified to rule on it rather than a shared queue.
AGENTThe engineer reads the finding against its source. Accepted, rejected, or the severity overruled with a justification recorded.
ENGINEERThe disposition is carried into the findings register, with the reviewer attached to the decision.
ENGINEERThese are not settings. They are how the workflow is built, which is what lets an engineering manager sign off on using it at all.
At project scale
AI engineering workflows earn their place by changing what reviewers spend their time on. The same team rules on more deliverables because the locating and assembling is already done when the finding arrives.
Technical document review stops being a search task and becomes a decision task. The same holds for design review automation, where the deliverable changes but the bottleneck does not.
What it connects to
A finding can only be routed once something has produced it. The review workflow sits on top of the rest of the platform.
FAQ
An agentic engineering workflow is one in which software prepares a decision and a person makes it. The agent locates the governing clause, compares the deliverable against it and attaches the evidence; the engineer rules on whether the finding stands.
No. A finding cannot close without a named engineer, and no decision is attributed to the system. A proposed finding carries no weight until someone rules on it.
Yes, and it is expected. A reviewer can reject a finding outright or overrule the proposed severity, with the justification recorded alongside the original.
It is routed to the discipline that owns the deliverable rather than into a shared queue, so it reaches someone qualified to rule on it.
The locating, comparing and assembling. Those are the parts of a review that consume the hours without needing judgement, and they are already done when the finding arrives.
Access is role-based and set per project, so a finding reaches someone qualified to close it. Roles are described on the Security & Governance page.
Next step
Bring a deliverable and the standard that governs it, and follow one finding from raised to closed with your own engineer holding the decision.