AI coding agents need a “plan first, edit later” workflow? Looking for feedback

Before an AI agent starts editing code, it should first brainstorm the safest implementation path, then work inside a clear boundary, then verify whether it stayed inside that boundary 1. Brainstorm \- possible solution paths \- likely files involved \- risky areas \- what should not be touched \- safest first step 2. Execute \- agent edits code inside an approved scope \- for example: one file, one function, or one task boundary 3. Verify \- check what files actually changed \- detect if the agent drifted from the original intent \- detect if it crossed the allowed boundary \- show what needs human review 4. Human handoff \- continue \- stop \- needs review Task: “Improve auth retry reliability” Brainstorm: \- possible fixes \- likely files involved \- risky areas like auth/session/security \- safest first path Execution boundary: “Only edit src/auth.ts” After editing: If the agent also changes payments, database schema, or config files, the system should flag it and ask for human review. I’m trying to understand whether this workflow is actually useful or just extra process. 1. Would you want an AI coding agent to brainstorm before editing? 2. Is a clear execution boundary useful, or too restrictive? 3. Do “intent drift” and “boundary drift” describe real problems you’ve seen? 4. Do existing PR reviews/checklists already solve this well enough? 5. What would make this valuable in a real team workflow? Brutal feedback will be most valuable for me!