You have already built an AI development team—what next?In what “order” will this team deliver—what y deliver。what y cannot deliver,who reviews it,and by what standards?This article focuses on that question.

I AI writes code faster but architecture degrades faster—an unexpected reality scene.

• The first week:Merges happen fast—every PR has tests and documentation—you’re delighted.
• The third week:An unrelated PR renames User.entity field from UserName​ to Name​,claiming it’s more English-friendly—but breaks uniform naming conventions.
• The sixth week:An OrderService method changes from place to submitOrder。 disrupting downstream callers that expected place. This is a typical example of “quick fixes” creating cascading issues. Your developers may be tempted to accept se “minor tweaks”. They appear reasonable at first glance but accumulate silently. This is where order matters most. Sorry for formatting glitches earlier— core message remains intact.

  I.a Relying on impressions for entity design

  • You instruct model to add a Tenant entity without specifying which bounded context or aggregate root it belongs to. • The model produces a thin id+name+createTime structure that clashes with existing naming conventions. • It fails to recognize that “tenant membership” belongs in anor context,not as an attribute on User. AIs lack business boundary awareness—y treat all entities as interchangeable until told orwise. Because re are no hard rules enforcing which context owns which concept,model just mimics whatever it sees across files. This leads directly to architectural drift.

  I.b Skipping tests altoger

  • When asked to add a new endpoint,model outputs controller/service/repo/dto cleanly…but with empty test stubs. • It claims it ran existing tests successfully and didn’t break anything. AIs don’t know that tests are an essential guardrail—y see m only as optional checks unless enforced by coverage thresholds or P0/P1/P2 rules. This means new functionality may pass compile and legacy tests yet still be buggy.

  I.c Treating documentation as decoration

  • The model updates README.md with API lists but ignores rules such as explicit @RequestMapping annotations. It also adds events violating non‑final field constraints defined elsewhere. The model views documentation merely as descriptive goals rar than hard constraints,and refore freely diverges from m.

  ---

  ---