Guardrails over guesses.

We are deliberate about how we use AI.

We do not ask it to invent solutions. We ask it to follow patterns.

Patterns Encode Experience

Patterns exist because something worked.

They represent lessons learned, mistakes avoided, and decisions made.

AI is very good at following rules. It is less good at choosing them.

Patterns are distilled experience. A retry pattern with exponential backoff exists because someone learned the hard way that constant retries overwhelm systems. A specific logging format exists because it makes debugging easier. A particular testing structure exists because it catches common mistakes.

These patterns are not arbitrary. They reflect real problems and real solutions. They encode trade-offs that were carefully considered.

AI can apply patterns reliably. Give it a rule and it will follow that rule consistently. But AI cannot choose which pattern to apply in a novel situation. It cannot weigh the trade-offs that led to the pattern in the first place.

This makes AI excellent for enforcement and terrible for invention. We leverage that difference intentionally.

Guessing Scales Risk

When AI guesses, it guesses confidently. That confidence can be dangerous.

By limiting AI to known patterns, we:

  • reduce variance
  • prevent novelty creep
  • keep decisions human owned

AI-generated solutions often look plausible. The code compiles. The logic seems sound. The structure feels reasonable. But plausible is not the same as correct.

When AI invents a solution, it is optimizing for statistical likelihood, not for your specific constraints. It might suggest an approach that worked in its training data but does not fit your architecture. It might propose a pattern that is common but wrong for your use case.

The danger is that these mistakes are not obvious. Bad AI suggestions do not look like gibberish. They look like reasonable code written by someone who does not fully understand your system.

By limiting AI to pattern enforcement, we avoid this risk. AI never invents. It only applies rules we have explicitly given it. If the output is wrong, it is because our rule was wrong, not because AI made a creative decision we did not anticipate.

This constraint also prevents novelty creep. Teams accumulate patterns for good reasons. If every engineer is free to introduce new approaches, consistency erodes. If AI invents new patterns, the problem accelerates. By keeping AI in enforcement mode, we ensure that new patterns are introduced deliberately, not accidentally.

This Keeps Humans in Control

AI accelerates execution. Humans retain judgment.

That balance feels right.

The division of labor is clear. Engineers decide what to build, which patterns to follow, and when to introduce new patterns. AI ensures that those decisions are applied consistently.

This keeps expertise where it belongs. The engineer who has been with the team for years understands why certain patterns exist. The engineer who is new learns those patterns by seeing them reinforced in every AI suggestion.

AI becomes a guardian of team standards rather than a source of novelty. It helps maintain the decisions that have already been made rather than making new decisions on behalf of the team.

This also makes AI safer to deploy broadly. We do not need to worry about junior engineers using AI to generate architecturally unsound code. The AI can only suggest patterns we have approved. If those patterns are sound, the suggestions will be too.

Final Thought

AI should help you go faster inside guardrails.

It should not decide where the guardrails go.

Related reading: