cladding

This loop is after one thing — turning the AI's "it's done" from a claim into a proof.

So you can ship AI-written code held to the same standard as human-written code — the three things an organization needs to hand coding to AI:

• Trusted — only code that cleared every check is recognized as done; an "it's done" you can't verify never passes.
• Traced — What shipped is on the record: what was verified is stamped into committed content, who and when land in the local session ledger, and the why lives in the spec — so handoff and review skip the archaeology.
• Scales — adding people and AIs would normally multiply conflicts and drift; because everyone works from one shared spec, those get caught automatically — so you can grow without it breaking down.

cladding builds itself with cladding too — 269 of its 273 features cleared this same gate, the first L4 implementation of the Ironclad standard.

What changes

The same situation, in a vanilla AI setup and in cladding.

Situation	Vanilla AI coding	cladding
Code drifts from the spec	fixed if a reviewer notices	auto-detected right after the edit · "done" can't pass while it's drifting
The AI says "it's done"	you take its word	done earned only when the gate is GREEN
Ending a session in a failing state	exits as-is, forgotten next time	the exit is blocked once, the failing checks handed off as a repair card
Two devs add a feature at the same time	merge conflict	hash-8 IDs · separate files → 0 conflicts
Who verifies the AI-written code?	the AI that wrote it self-certifies (risky)	an implementation-blind grader + the mechanical gate
Switching AI tools	reconfigure per tool	one spec → 5 hosts wired automatically

Who it's for

• A developer who has an AI write code — when the AI says "it's done," cladding doesn't take its word for it: it checks whether the work actually passes, and only then counts it as done. (Automating it in a loop? That's the loop section.)
• A team of people and AIs — everyone works from the same spec, so when their changes clash or drift apart it's caught automatically, and no one breaks someone else's work by accident.
• An organization that has to prove its work — every done is recorded with the proof that it actually passed, so months later "was this verified? why was it built this way?" is answered by the repo, not by memory.

How cladding wraps your host LLM

Before — inject the intent, so the LLM starts with the right context:

• Only the intent that matters — the why of the feature at hand, its related features, and its acceptance criteria (never the whole spec).
• Project map injected — feature counts, what's in progress, and the last verification result, handed over at the start of every conversation (and now you can see it too ↓).
• Team rules applied — the forbidden and preferred patterns you agreed on, as standing instructions every time.

After — verify the result: the 15-stage gate, 41 drift detectors, and an implementation-blind grader — an agent that checks the work against the spec with no tool to read the implementation, so it can't rubber-stamp what it wrote.

Real-time intervention (map injection · instant block · stop-block) runs fully on Claude Code. On Codex · Gemini · Antigravity · Cursor the same verification runs through in-conversation tool calls plus the git · CI gate.

"done" is earned, not declared

The chronic disease of AI coding is "it's done" declared with nothing behind it. In cladding, status: done is not a value you write — it's a value you earn.

1. Try to write the completion mark yourself → blocked on the spot ("earn it by verifying it").
2. Request completion → all 9 deterministic stages run; recorded as done only if every one passes, else it auto-reverts (the E2E · evidence stages run in CI's full 15).
3. The moment it passes, a verification signature is committed — proof that "this code was verified at this point."
4. Try to end a session on a failure → blocked once (end again on the same failure and it's logged as a known-failing exit rather than let through), and the repair card carries into the next conversation.

Stated plainly: bypass paths exist that the instant block can't see; those are caught by the after-the-fact gate. Instant block is the first line of defense, the gate the second — neither is a standalone guarantee.

cladding backs your AI loop

Loop engineering is a shift in how you use an AI: instead of prompting it step by step, you build a loop that drives it toward a goal and runs on its own — discover, plan, execute, verify, iterate. But a loop is only as honest as its verify step, and an AI left to check its own work just passes itself. So you put something in the loop that can truly say "no" — that's cladding: the check that grades your code against your spec, not the AI's opinion of its own work.

Three things it gives your loop:

• A signal it can act on — every pass you get back a plain, machine-readable result: what failed, where, and how bad. Feed it straight into the loop, no console-scraping (clad check --json).
• An honest stop — the loop ends on the gate, not the AI's word. A feature turns done only when the strict gate is GREEN, and reverts if it isn't. "The AI says it's finished" becomes "the gate let it stand."
• A memory across passes — a local log (.cladding/events.log.jsonl) remembers the last pass's checks, tries, and drift, so the next one doesn't start blind.

Project graph — see it and ask it

This is cladding's internal graph of your project — spec · code · tests · docs, all connected. Now you can see it and ask it.

Why it matters — docs and code don't drift apart. Docs lie as time passes: the code changes, the description doesn't. cladding re-checks that link every time it reads the code, and blocks "done" while the two are out of sync.

Blue = spec (center) · orange = code · green = tests · pink = docs; the more a node connects, the larger it grows and the more it pulls toward the center.

• See — run clad graph serve and the whole project opens in your browser; what connects to what, at a glance.
• Ask — "what breaks if I change this?" The graph answers with the affected code and the tests to run — it doesn't guess.
• Measure — the bigger the project, the more it saves: a median 4× less to read when fixing something (clad measure · how it's measured).

clad graph serve                                  # live graph — localhost:3000, auto-reloads on save
clad graph export --format html --out graph.html  # or a single offline .html file

Requires cladding 0.7.0+.

Under the hood

Spec → Code → Tests as one cycle — the spec records the why, the gate verifies, the detectors block drift.

Spec — the project's long-term memory. An LLM forgets everything between sessions, so the spec is where the project's intent lives: durable, versioned in git, and fed to the model before it starts. It holds the why and the what; the design tier just below holds the how. (It's the memory of intent, not a log of what happened.) Four tiers, top to bottom: intent (A) — sealed until a human signs off — then design (B), code + attestation (C), and audit (D). A outranks all — if the spec and the code ever disagree, the code is the one that's wrong.

Each feature is its own sharded file with an 8-char hash ID, so two devs adding features at once never collide. A feature reads like this — the what, written as a testable acceptance criterion:

# spec/features/checkout-a1b2c3d4.yaml
id: F-a1b2c3d4
slug: checkout-idempotency
status: done
acceptance_criteria:
  - id: AC-9f3e21a0
    text: "When a charge is retried with the same idempotency key, the system
            shall return the original result and never double-charge."
    test_refs: ["tests/checkout/idempotency.test.ts#retry returns the original charge"]

EARS keeps every criterion testable — WHEN <trigger> … the system SHALL <response>, the shape of the text: field above.

→ 4-tier model · hash-based IDs

Gate — the 15-stage Iron Law. One check engine, bundled by cost — 3 run at commit, 9 at push/completion, all 15 in CI:

• Static (6) — Type · Lint · Drift · Commit-clean · Architecture · Secrets
• Test & conformance (4) — Unit · Coverage · Spec-conformance (the impl-blind grader) · Deliverable smoke (blocks the empty green: tests pass but the deliverable never runs)
• End-to-end (3) — Smoke · Performance · Visual
• Evidence (2) — Audit (every acceptance criterion has evidence) · UAT (every done feature has evidence)

→ the 15 stages

Detectors — 41 drift detectors. They catch every direction spec · code · test can diverge:

Direction	Catches	#
spec ↔ code	in the spec but missing from code, or code that strays from it	10
code ↔ test	code with no test · coverage drop · leaked secrets	6
spec ↔ test	an acceptance criterion no test verifies · false status	6
spec hygiene	the spec's own integrity — id collisions · dependency cycles	8
environment	build environment · meta files	3
verification freshness	code changed since its verify signature	1
governance · docs	policy violations · doc drift · claims beyond the evidence	4
graph · doc links	broken doc ↔ spec links · missing dependency edges	3

The graph these power is that long-term memory made queryable — traceability / retrieval, not a correctness claim: what connects to what and what to re-check, not that the code is right. → full detector catalog

One feature's lifecycle runs Define → Sync → Implement → Earn — you earn done only by passing every check.

Multi-Agent

Hand the code to an AI and you usually hand it the tests too. But when the same AI writes both, the tests get shaped around the code it just wrote. The bug is there and the tests still pass. A green run that proves nothing.

So cladding asks one thing of every finished feature: were the building and the checking done by different hands? The answer goes on the record with the completion. (How many agents run, and how, is the host's call — cladding is not a multi-agent framework and doesn't arrange them.)

• one agent built it, tested it, and passed its own work — self-certified. It can shape the tests around the code it just wrote, so passing isn't checking.
• nobody checked it separately — self-certified as well. It isn't a mark against the work; it means no separate check is on record.
• another agent wrote the tests from the spec, with no way to open the code — independent. It never saw the bug, so it can't shape a test around one — what decides the label is what that agent could open, not what anyone promised.

Keep the building and the checking in different hands. It's the same approach as the separation of duties that audit rules like the EU AI Act and SOX ask for — close in spirit, not a certification.

Ecosystem

cladding sits at the junction of three existing categories.

• Spec Kit · OpenSpec · Tessl · Kiro help you write a good spec. cladding adds the part that keeps cross-checking, inside the dev loop, that the spec and the code haven't drifted.
• BMAD · ChatDev · Claude Code Agent Teams split roles across AI agents. cladding leaves that split to the host and judges whatever it ran against spec · gate · audit record.
• tdd-guard forces the AI to write tests first. cladding's Unit · Coverage · oracle stages do the same job, more structurally.
• OpenHands · Cline · Aider · Goose are runners that make the AI write code. cladding is the upper layer that verifies and governs what they produce.

The distinction is the combination — binding those cores into one verification loop.

Install

1. Install once on your machine

npm install -g cladding   # install only the cladding CLI

This command may be run from any directory. It does not add Cladding to any AI model's context.

2. Activate one project, then start your AI tool

cd <project>
clad setup                # connect Cladding only to this project

# Choose exactly one and remove its leading '#':
# codex          # Codex
# claude         # Claude Code
# gemini         # Gemini CLI
# agy            # Antigravity
# cursor-agent   # Cursor Agent

clad setup connects the AI tools it detects on your machine (Claude Code, Codex, Gemini, Antigravity, Cursor) to this project only — Antigravity is the one exception, wired machine-wide because it reads no project-local MCP config (details in setup). It does not expose Cladding skills or MCP tools in projects where setup was not run. Use only the command for your AI tool; for Cursor IDE, open <project> as the workspace. Start a new AI session from this folder after setup so the host discovers the project-local connection. When Codex first opens a Git repository, approve its normal project-trust prompt; Codex intentionally ignores project MCP config until the repository is trusted.

3. Apply Cladding once

Choose the starting point that fits and say it naturally in your AI tool.

Cladding first inspects the project without changing it. Your AI shows the exact file operations and a one-time approval phrase; initialization begins only when you repeat that phrase in a separate reply. Opening a project or asking a question about Cladding never authorizes file changes. This exact-match step prevents accidental application; MCP cannot prove which user produced a tool argument, so it is not a sandbox against a malicious or compromised host.

An idea, nothing else

Start this B2B payment SaaS with Cladding.

The LLM analyzes the domain and creates the spec, docs, and policies. It asks up to three follow-up questions only when an important product decision is still unresolved; a complete plan asks none.

A planning document

Apply Cladding using docs/plan.md.

Cladding loads the file and uses its contents as the project intent.

An existing project

Analyze this project and apply Cladding.

Cladding scans the existing code and combines the observed patterns with your intent.

Once initialization is complete, keep developing in the same conversation. Ask for the next feature in plain language; the AI uses the generated spec and docs and keeps material design changes aligned as the project grows. Checks run when the host invokes them; use the optional Git hooks or CI gate when you want automatic enforcement.

Implement email sign-in, including tests.

There is nothing new to memorize. For host-specific invocation, stricter Git/CI enforcement, and verified host status, see setup details.

Update

Ask your AI tool (recommended)

From your project, say:

Update cladding to the latest version.

If the AI tool has terminal and global-install permission, it updates the CLI, refreshes host wiring, updates the current project, and explains any new drift. Otherwise, it shows the commands for you to approve or run.

Or update from the terminal

npm update -g cladding   # 1. get the new CLI version
cd <project>             # 2. enter one Cladding project
clad update              # 3. refresh its host wiring and derived state

Run clad update in each Cladding project you want to upgrade. It also performs the project-scoped setup refresh, so a separate clad setup is unnecessary. It preserves authored code, feature/spec content, and documentation; only derived data and Cladding-managed instruction blocks may be refreshed. If the new version reports drift, hand that result to your AI tool:

Reconcile the drift the update flagged.

Status

Version	Conformance	Tests	Gate	Features
v0.9.3 (2026-08)	L4 · self-declared	2815 / 2815	15 stages · 41 detectors	273 (269 done)

249 test files · 6 capabilities · coverage drop blocked by the COVERAGE_DROP detector

Road to Ironclad 1.0 — 1.0 locks only when two independent implementations pass the L4 conformance fixtures (GOVERNANCE § 1). cladding is the first.

Docs

• Why cladding (project context)
• A/B & real-usage evidence
• 4-tier governance model
• The 15 gate stages
• Hash-based feature IDs
• 41 detector catalog
• Setup · host wiring · upgrading
• Glossary (EN · KO)
• Governance · roadmap to 1.0

License

MIT. LICENSE · Related: Ironclad (the standard cladding implements) · harness-boot (the seed).