Coding Safety Plan Profile

Purpose

Define the minimum planning profile for a bounded coding Work Slice before implementation starts.

This profile specializes the existing Work Slice, Intent-to-Evidence, Agent Harness and readiness-gate contracts for code changes. It does not create a new lifecycle, runtime, command, policy engine or autonomous coding flow.

When to use

Use this profile for Standard or High-Assurance coding slices when the work changes source code, configuration, tests, build behavior, schemas, permissions, runtime behavior or documentation that could affect how a system is used.

Lite coding work may use a compact version when the change is obviously reversible, local and low risk.

Required plan fields

A coding plan MUST declare:

coding_safety_plan:
  slice_id: string
  planning_depth: Lite | Standard | High-Assurance
  base_state:
    branch: string
    starting_commit: string
    dirty_state: clean | tracked_changes | untracked_present | unknown
    protected_paths: []
  intent_refs:
    intent_to_evidence_ref: not_needed | string
    work_slice_ref: string
  scope:
    in_scope: []
    out_of_scope: []
    assumptions: []
    human_decisions_needed: []
  execution_boundary:
    allowed_paths: []
    blocked_paths: []
    allowed_commands: []
    blocked_actions: []
  expected_changes:
    files_or_areas: []
    behavior_change: none | docs_only | test_only | code | config | schema | runtime | unknown
    user_visible_change: yes | no | unknown
  verification:
    commands: []
    expected_results: []
    manual_checks: []
    unavailable_checks: []
  drift_control:
    drift_signals: []
    check_cadence: before_commit | before_pr | per_checkpoint | manual
    response: tighten_scope | ask_human | stop | split_slice
  rollback:
    strategy: git_revert | restore_files | feature_flag | migration_rollback | not_applicable | unavailable
    rollback_refs: []
    irreversible_risks: []
  stop_conditions: []
  human_review:
    required: true | false
    reviewer_profile: non_engineer | engineer | domain_expert | security | owner
    review_focus: []

Required invariants

1. No coding without a base state. The plan must identify branch, starting commit and dirty-state posture. Untracked files may exist, but their treatment must be explicit.
2. Scope is narrower than intent. The plan must list both in_scope and out_of_scope so the implementer can detect drift.
3. Verification names expected results. Commands alone are insufficient; the reviewer must know what passing means.
4. Rollback or stop is explicit. If rollback is unavailable, a human review or stop condition must explain why work can safely proceed.
5. Human merge remains human. Passing tests, AI confidence, or an implementation agent cannot authorize merge or deployment.
6. No hidden runtime expansion. The plan cannot introduce new runtime, backend, schema, collector, dependency, CLI, automation or policy-engine scope unless that scope is explicitly listed and authorized by the Work Slice.

Non-engineer review checklist

A non-engineer reviewer should be able to answer:

• What will change?
• What will explicitly not change?
• How will we know it worked?
• What evidence should exist before merge?
• What would make us stop or ask for help?
• How can the change be undone or contained?
• Which decisions still belong to a human?

If those answers are not visible, the slice is not ready for execution.

Relationship to Adaptive Skills

An implementation-planning-advisor skill is not promoted by this contract. A future skill proposal must prove a recurring gap not covered by existing feature-planning, testing, debugging, architecture-review, Lean Implementation and independent validation guidance.