A Design Theory for AI-Assisted Software Development Derived from Christopher Alexander's Theory of Form

Abstract

Code generated by large language models (LLMs) cannot be assumed to meet specified requirements. Reviews, testing, and static analysis still apply, but which of them a sufficient harness needs, and in what role, is open. We propose a design theory derived from Christopher Alexander's theory of form, and a methodology for applying it. In Alexander's account, fit between a form and its context can be perceived only negatively, through the absence of identified misfits. We make the organization's tradition explicit and derive the misfits from it and from the problem's classification. The theory models the LLM as a non-native vernacular builder, trained on many codebases but native to none, whose output tends to drift toward mainstream conventions rather than the local tradition. We engineer four pieces of machinery: explicit representations of the problem (Jackson's problem frames) and of the tradition (a four-form pattern language); deterministic misfit detectors; a fix loop; and a human-gated legislative circuit governing the representations and detectors. We call the resulting methodology, a practice of harness engineering, Misfit-Governed Development (MGD). Its dual-loop process separates an autonomous inner loop, where the LLM iterates against the gates, from a human outer loop, where specifications are judged against the world. Together they form the S = P = T = W assurance model (specification, program, tests, world), whose equals signs name relations, not identity. We report evidence from building and rebuilding a Scrum system of four event-sourced aggregates from 64 problem-frame specifications, verified by about 1,300 generated tests and 28 blocking gates, one applying 188 rules. This addresses the generativity dimension of Alexander's 1996 OOPSLA challenge. The moral dimension, whether the specification still fits the world, requires human judgment and belongs to the outer loop.