Unstructured Validation
This is the patchwork quilt pain point. Your quality gates aren't a solid, unified wall; they're a collection of disconnected, ad-hoc scripts, linters, and "tribal knowledge" rules that have accumulated over time. There's no clear, centrally-managed hierarchy or single source of truth for "what is quality?" This unstructured, inconsistent approach means that while you have checks, critical issues (especially in fast-moving, AI-generated code) can easily slip through the "seams" of your messy, unmanaged validation system.
Instead of a clear, layered strategy (e.g., L1: Pre-commit linters, L2: CI unit & integration tests, L3: Post-deploy security scans), validation checks are scattered randomly and inconsistently throughout the development lifecycle. A critical validation rule might exist as a pre-commit hook in one repository, as a CI job in another, and only as a "team rule" in a Confluence doc for a third. This lack of a coherent, hierarchical quality strategy makes it impossible for developers (or AI) to reliably know what "safe" or "complete" actually means.
This creates a false sense of security and a "death by a thousand cuts" to quality. Critical issues are consistently missed, not because there was no check, but because the check was in the wrong place or wasn't applied to the right project. This leads to massive developer friction ("why did this pass on my machine but fail in the CI pipeline?"). Ultimately, validation is inconsistent, quality degrades, and the team spends more time debugging the validation system itself than shipping features.
The Repo-Specific Linter
The "Platform" team's repository has a strict pre-commit hook that blocks "TODO" comments. The "Product" team's repo doesn't. AI-generated code with placeholder "TODO" comments gets blocked in one place and sails through in another.
The Out-of-Order Gate
A 10-minute integration test (a slow, expensive check) is incorrectly placed in the pre-commit hook, while a 1-second linter (a fast, cheap check) only runs after the 10-minute test. This terrible hierarchy incentivizes developers to just use --no-verify and bypass all checks.
The Rule on a Wiki
The team's "rule" for database query optimization is just a paragraph in a Confluence document. An AI, unaware of this document, generates an inefficient N+1 query. This code passes all automated checks because the "rule" was never actually codified.
Overlapping and Conflicting Checks
The pre-commit hook uses ESLint with one set of rules, but the CI pipeline runs SonarQube with a different, conflicting set of rules, creating a constant, confusing stream of failures that developers learn to ignore.
The problem isn't the AI; it's the lack of a human-in-the-loop verification and governance system. These workflows are the perfect antidote.
Enforce Quality Gate Hierarchy
View workflow →The Pain Point It Solves
This workflow directly attacks the patchwork quilt problem by establishing a clear, layered quality gate hierarchy (guardrails → enterprise compliance → schema → tests → security → linting). Instead of allowing validation checks to be scattered randomly, this workflow ensures that checks are organized hierarchically, with fast checks first and expensive checks later, and that all gates must pass before allowing commits.
Why It Works
It enforces structured validation. By establishing a quality gate hierarchy (guardrails → enterprise compliance → schema → tests → security → linting), running guardrails first (checking that critical tools exist), making each gate independent (one failure doesn't skip others), requiring all gates to pass before allowing commits (no silent bypasses), and monitoring bypass frequency weekly, this workflow ensures that validation is consistent, predictable, and effective. This prevents critical issues from slipping through the "seams" and ensures developers (and AI) know what "safe" or "complete" actually means.
Want to prevent this pain point?
Explore our workflows and guardrails to learn how teams address this issue.
Engineering Leader & AI Guardrails Leader. Creator of Engify.ai, helping teams operationalize AI through structured workflows and guardrails based on real production incidents.