London

June 28–29, 2027

New York

September 15–16, 2026

Berlin

November 9–10, 2026

Effective verification for humans and agents

How to build an SDLC that catches errors at source


Date & time

17:00

Register for the panel discussion

Login or join LeadDev.com to view this content

Create an account to access our free engineering leadership content, free online events and to receive our weekly email newsletter. We will also keep you up to date with LeadDev events.

Register with google

We have linked your account and just need a few more details to complete your registration:

Terms and conditions

 

 

Enter your email address to reset your password.

 

A link has been emailed to you - check your inbox.



Don't have an account? Click here to register

Code review was built as a checkpoint for a small number of changes, from people who could explain their reasoning if asked. It wasn’t built for the sheer volume of edits today, from authors who can’t explain their reasoning at all. AI-co-authored pull requests carry roughly 70% more issues than human-only ones.

It’s easy to add another review at the end of the pipeline but far more effective to catch mistakes when they happen. Handing development over to a non-human collaborator means safeguarding against its weaknesses by adding more context up front, more frequent check-ins, and more accountability at the point code is written.

In this session, we bring together engineering leaders who are rebuilding the software development life cycle (SDLC) to account for the new requirements of verification at machine scale. Participants will learn where to introduce verification throughout the SDLC to manage much higher volumes of change.

Key takeaways:

  • How to move verification earlier in the SDLC: from a pre-merge gate to a continuous check at every stage where an agent acts
  • How to preserve accountability when a change has multiple authors, human and otherwise
  • How to give agents the context to produce reviewable work upfront, rather than relying on review to catch what they got wrong

panelists:

Moderator: