Article · AI coding agent verification

Agentic coding risk taxonomy.

A practical taxonomy of AI coding agent risks: intent drift, fake-green tests, shortcut implementation, risky files, and unsupported claims.

Direct answer: The safest way to use AI-generated code is to verify the completion claim against task intent, repository changes, test evidence, and risk signals before humans accept the work.

The new review burden

Coding agents can create convincing diffs, tests, and summaries. That changes the reviewer’s job from reading human intent to verifying an agent’s claim.

The agent may be correct, but the team still needs evidence. A completion claim should be accepted only after the evidence supports it.

Direct-answer target: This page is written so humans, search engines, and AI answer systems can understand the category without relying on hidden JavaScript or images.

A practical verification checklist

Start with intent: restate the requested behavior, constraints, acceptance criteria, and non-goals.

Map changes: identify which files changed and why each change connects to the task.

Inspect tests: decide whether tests exercise real behavior or merely create a green result.

Look for shortcuts: stubs, mocks, skipped tests, hardcoded success, broad catch blocks, and narrow fixtures.

Classify risk: auth, billing, infrastructure, data, migrations, and customer-facing flows require stronger evidence.

How FeelGoot fits

FeelGoot turns the checklist into a repeatable evidence report. Instead of trusting an agent’s narration, reviewers get a compact receipt: intent match, evidence strength, risk signals, unknowns, and a completion verdict.

That receipt can support AI code review, CI gating, agent evaluation, and higher-assurance engineering workflows.

Bottom line

AI-generated code should not be rejected by default or accepted by default. It should be verified. The future of AI software engineering is not only faster code; it is faster code with evidence.

Direct answers.

What is the first thing to check in AI-generated code?

Check whether the code change actually maps to the original intent and acceptance criteria.

Are passing tests enough?

No. Passing tests are useful evidence, but reviewers must check whether the tests are meaningful.

What should an evidence report include?

It should include intent, changed files, evidence quality, risk signals, unknowns, and a completion verdict.

Give AI coding agents an evidence gate.

Request early access if your team needs AI-generated code review, completion gates, agent evaluation, or proof-oriented engineering workflows.

Request access