# AI Coding Agent Governance Checklist: Permissions, Logs and Approvals

A useful coding agent governance checklist covers identity, permissions, tool access, logs, human approval, sandboxing, cost limits, and incident response. Start with a small pilot before wider rollout.

## Quick Answer

Before a software team rolls out AI coding agents, decide who can use them, what tools they can call, what they may change, what needs approval, where logs are stored, how secrets are protected, and how to roll back or stop bad runs. Governance is useful only when it becomes an executable checklist.

## Best for

Engineering managers, platform teams, security reviewers, and developer-experience teams rolling out coding agents.

## Use this guide to

Engineering leaders and platform teams want a one-page governance checklist for adopting AI coding agents.

## Recommended play

1. Run a two-week pilot with one team, one repository, and a narrow set of agent permissions.
2. Write approval rules before enabling write, deploy, external network, or production-data access.
3. Review logs weekly during the pilot and update the policy from real incidents, not imagined edge cases.

## Coding agent governance checklist

Use this as a first-pass policy map before enabling agents across a software team.

| Area | Minimum rule | Why it matters | Launch gate |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Identity | Know which user, team, and repo started the agent | Makes accountability possible | Agent activity is tied to a user or service account |
| Permissions | Split read, write, command, network, and deploy access | Limits damage when context is wrong | High-risk actions need approval |
| Forbidden actions | List actions agents may not perform without explicit approval | Prevents control-plane drift | Secrets, production writes, billing, deploy, deletion, and migrations are gated |
| Logs | Record prompt summary, tools, changed files, commands, and approvals | Makes review and incident response possible | Logs avoid secrets but keep useful traceability |
| Review | Require a human diff review before merge | Agents can pass tests and still change the wrong thing | No auto-merge for high-risk repos |
| Emergency stop | Disable agent access, revoke credentials, close branches, and preserve logs | Limits blast radius after a bad run | Owner and rollback path are known before launch |

## Execution steps

1. **Write the pilot boundary** — Choose one team, one repository type, allowed tasks, forbidden tasks, and a review owner.
2. **Create permission tiers** — Separate read-only, limited write, command execution, network access, and deployment paths.
3. **Define audit fields** — Record actor, repo, session, tools called, files changed, commands run, approval state, and final outcome.
4. **Review after two weeks** — Keep what developers actually used, remove confusing rules, and close gaps found in logs or reviews.
5. **Publish the Markdown policy** — Keep a copyable checklist in the engineering handbook or repo instructions so developers can apply the same approval, logging, and rollback rules during real work.

## Common pitfalls

- **Starting with a company-wide rollout**: Start with a small pilot so the policy learns from real work before it scales.
- **Treating all tools as equal**: A read-only docs lookup and a deploy command need different approval paths.
- **Logging either too much or too little**: Keep traceability, but do not store secrets or unnecessary private payloads.

## Implementation checklist

- [ ] Name the pilot team and repository scope.
- [ ] Separate read, write, command, network, and deploy permissions.
- [ ] Require approval for destructive or production-facing actions.
- [ ] Ban agents from copying secrets, changing billing, deleting data, or deploying without approval.
- [ ] Record actor, repo, branch, tool surface, files changed, commands run, approval state, and outcome.
- [ ] Keep audit logs without storing secrets.
- [ ] Require human review before merging agent changes.
- [ ] Document rollback and emergency stop steps.
- [ ] Write an incident response path before broad rollout.

## FAQ

**Q: What should you do first?**

Run a two-week pilot with one team, one repository, and a narrow set of agent permissions.

**Q: Who is this guide for?**

Engineering managers, platform teams, security reviewers, and developer-experience teams rolling out coding agents.

**Q: What evidence supports this guide?**

This guide uses listed source material from GitHub, Cursor, OWASP. Source links and scope notes are available on this page.

## Evidence sources

- [GitHub Copilot coding agent](https://docs.github.com/en/copilot/concepts/coding-agent/coding-agent) — GitHub. Official reference for agentic coding workflows and review paths.
- [Cursor Enterprise organizations](https://cursor.com/changelog/enterprise-organizations) — Cursor. Official product reference for organization-level governance controls.
- [OWASP Top 10 for LLM Applications](https://owasp.org/www-project-top-10-for-large-language-model-applications/) — OWASP. Security reference for common LLM application risks.

## Related guides

- [MCP security checklist](/guides/secure-mcp-servers-ai-coding-agents) — MCP permissions are one of the most common governance boundaries.
- [local vs cloud AI coding agent](/guides/local-vs-cloud-ai-coding-agent) — Environment choice affects permissions, logs, and rollback.
- [AGENTS.md template](/guides/agents-md-template-for-ai-coding-agents) — Some governance rules should be visible inside repo instructions.
- [loop engineering for AI coding agents](/guides/loop-engineering-ai-coding-agents) — Governance for unattended loops needs iteration caps, audit logs, and escalation before team-wide rollout.

---
Canonical: https://www.kyenai.com/guides/agent-governance-checklist-for-software-teams