This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Engineering Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject EngineeringEngineering Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Systems Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.SystemsWikipedia:WikiProject SystemsTemplate:WikiProject SystemsSystems Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is not associated with a particular field. Fields are listed on the template page. Computing: Software Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Low-importance).

This was largely sourced to marketing blogs. One claim about LLMs purported to be cited to a conference paper from 2004.

How are the solid RSes on SDD? - David Gerard (talk) 12:39, 20 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

For the lead InfoQ does not seem ideal, here, but I found one additional RS we could use:

• https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0950584920302457

It also appears that reliable sources use the term "specification-driven development" more often than "spec-driven development." in both the paper I mentioned and the Springer paper already in the page. We may want to consider renaming to match sourcing. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 18:14, 21 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Fine by me - David Gerard (talk) 09:33, 24 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Okay, done. I replaced the unreliable sources with another reliable one and moved the page to match usage in these sources. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 13:51, 24 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

basis of AI-led SDLC [1], different than vibecoding [2][3][4][5] It'd be good to cover. ~2026-38073-05 (talk) 19:40, 3 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Do you have any independent secondary sources supporting inclusion? The links to the blog posts provided are generally not considered reliable sources. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 20:27, 3 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

yeah, but those are blog posts from leading researches/experts in the field on blogs adjacent to big corporations like Amazon (published white paper) etc.. It's about techical stuff not product propaganda. It seems to me that's more reliable than an article from Idk let's say "wired" on the topic. Regarding all that, I am of the opinion it passes the requirements. It's the practice of big companies to publish techical stuff on adjacent blogs, and they leave marketing, product announcements etc on the main site. ~2026-38073-05 (talk) 05:52, 4 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

The issue is not the the companies or authors are more knowledgeable. The concern is if the material is independent of the subject, so wikipedia in general does not use vendor or corporate blogs as reliable sources. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 15:59, 4 July 2026 (UTC)Reply