A pattern I keep seeing in early AI-in-the-SDLC teams: someone wires an LLM into the PR-review pipeline as a quality gate, the LLM marks one perfectly fine PR as "risky" two weeks in, the team lead overrides it once and grumbles about it twice, and within a month the AI gate is silently disabled. You can't recover from that. Once a TL has spent a Friday afternoon explaining to engineering why the AI thinks their PR is dangerous when it isn't, "AI dev tools" become a punchline in their next 1:1 with the CTO. And the AI was probably right some of the time — you just lost the chance to find out which times. I'm building a SaaS that touches this problem (Codens, an AI dev harness — happy to talk about it but it's not the point of this post). When I designed the PR risk evaluation service for it, I started with five non-negotiable design rules that I think apply to any AI-in-workflow product: AI is advisory only. Never auto-blocks a merge. The TL owns code quality. Not the AI. OK needs no reason.…