Decision inputs
Facts that change the policy answer
For this request, the private repository and a technical question is the input boundary and code locations and an implementation answer is the output boundary. A useful check makes both explicit.
- 1Task and owner
- Software engineer wants to search a private code repository with AI. Responsibility for code locations and an implementation answer stays with a named person or team throughout the request.
- 2Information involved
- The private repository and a technical question. The classification must cover what the tool can retrieve as well as what the requester types.
- 3Tool and account
- An approved company account. The request should identify the exact account because product-level approval leaves important controls unknown.
- 4Intended result
- The expected result is code locations and an implementation answer. Record the audience and the next system in the chain, rather than describing the output only as a draft.
- 5Consequence if it is wrong
- The repository may contain secrets, customer-specific code or restricted intellectual property. That risk sets the level of review and the person who should receive an exception.
- 6Human review
- repository owner should inspect, change, reject or stop the result. Their role should include checking source facts, correcting errors and refusing the proposed use.
Possible policy routes
The task name alone cannot decide it.
A published workplace policy can return different answers for the same task. These are the practical branches worth encoding.
A routine policy route may be possible
A routine route is easier to justify when the exact account is approved, only the minimum proprietary source code and possible secrets is used, code locations and an implementation answer remains within the stated purpose, and repository owner reviews it before use.
Approval may be required
A named reviewer should take over when the account or data handling is uncertain, the repository may contain secrets, customer-specific code or restricted intellectual property, or code locations and an implementation answer reaches people or systems beyond the requester’s authority.
The request may need to stop or change
The policy may require another method where restricted information would enter an unapproved service, the output would act before repository owner can intervene, or use only an approved private connection and enforce repository access controls cannot be maintained. Consider less information, a controlled account or a non-AI process.
Request checklist
Questions to ask before using the tool
- 01
Does the selected account retain or reuse anything supplied while trying to search a private code repository with AI?
- 02
What is the most sensitive element in the private repository and a technical question, and does the tool need it?
- 03
Could someone treat code locations and an implementation answer as final even though it was generated as assistance?
- 04
Will repository owner review before the result is sent, published or acted upon?
- 05
Which change in tool, data, purpose or impact would require a fresh request?
Worked request
What the employee should submit
This example supplies decision facts without pasting the underlying material into the approval record.
- requester
- software engineer
- task
- Use AI to search a private code repository with AI.
- information
- the private repository and a technical question
- tool
- An approved company account
- frequency
- Recurring work
- region
- Where the work and affected people are located
- purpose
- Analyse
- impact
- Internal work
- review
- Complete human review
- owner
- repository owner
Useful safeguards
Controls that fit this request
- ✓
Use only an approved private connection and enforce repository access controls
- ✓
Document why each part of the private repository and a technical question is necessary before making it available to the tool.
- ✓
Reassess the request whenever its tool, information classification, frequency or consequence changes.
- ✓
Make the final route reproducible from the recorded facts, safeguards and policy version.
Questions people ask
About this AI use
Is using AI to search a private code repository with AI automatically allowed?
The task name cannot settle the answer. Apply the company’s published rules to the private repository and a technical question, the exact account, code locations and an implementation answer, its audience and the proposed review.
What does the policy need to know about this use?
Describe code locations and an implementation answer, identify the private repository and a technical question, name the exact tool and account, explain who will receive or rely on the output, and state how repository owner will review it.
How should a later reviewer understand this decision?
Make the final route reproducible from the recorded facts, safeguards and policy version. A classification and controlled reference may be enough when copying the private repository and a technical question would create unnecessary risk.