AWS Expands Kiro’s Agentic AI: “Design-first” and “Bug Fix” Specs Aim for Higher-Quality Code (and Fewer 2 a.m. Incidents)

AI generated image for AWS Expands Kiro’s Agentic AI: “Design-first” and “Bug Fix” Specs Aim for Higher-Quality Code (and Fewer 2 a.m. Incidents)

Amazon Web Services (AWS) is doubling down on the idea that the best way to make AI-written code less chaotic is to give it fewer excuses to be chaotic.

On February 24, 2026, DevOps.com reported that AWS extended its Kiro developer tool with two new capabilities designed to improve software quality: a Design-first specification and a Bug Fix specification. The piece was written by Mike Vizard, and it’s the best “short version” summary of what AWS is trying to do with Kiro right now: use a specs-based, agentic workflow to produce code that’s not only faster to generate, but more predictable to review, test, and maintain.

In this article, I’ll expand on what those announcements mean in practice, how they fit into the broader market for agentic coding tools, why AWS is leaning on property-based testing as a quality signal, and what engineering leaders should do before letting an AI agent “helpfully” fix bugs across a business-critical codebase.

What AWS announced: Design-first and Bug Fix specifications in Kiro

Kiro is AWS’s agentic AI developer tool built around a specification-driven workflow. The latest update adds two new “specs” that act like structured operating procedures for the agent:

  • Design-first specification: a workflow where Kiro generates (and asks you to review) a design that aligns with best practices, then derives requirements and tasks from that design. AWS positions this as a way to keep code generation aligned with engineering standards rather than the agent’s “best guess.” citeturn2search1
  • Bug Fix specification: a workflow that aims to fix issues earlier in the lifecycle by having the agent reproduce the bug, generate tests that prove the bug exists, apply a fix, then generate additional tests to confirm the fix and prevent unintended behavior changes. citeturn2search1

If you’ve been tracking the evolution from autocomplete → chat assistants → “agents,” this is a familiar pattern: the more autonomy a tool gets, the more it needs guardrails. Kiro’s guardrails are increasingly framed as specs + narrow agent scope + tests as executable proof.

Kiro in context: AWS’s bet on spec-driven development

Kiro launched in preview in mid-2025 as an “agentic IDE” positioned to help developers move from “vibe coding” to “viable code.” The core premise is simple enough to explain and difficult enough to do well: before writing code, the agent and the developer produce a written spec; then the agent implements against that spec. citeturn1search3turn3news12

AWS’s own Kiro blog describes this as Spec Driven Development (SDD), where the spec becomes “living documentation” and a reference artifact for implementation and testing. citeturn1search3

That design choice is not just philosophical. It’s also practical:

  • Specs can be versioned in git, reviewed like code, and used as a change-management anchor.
  • Specs can be converted into tests (especially property-based tests) to “keep the agent honest.” citeturn1search3
  • Specs constrain scope, which reduces the risk of an agent hallucinating requirements, inventing APIs, or “fixing” things you didn’t ask it to fix.

Kiro’s latest update continues this strategy: instead of giving the agent a bigger hammer, AWS is handing it more precise instructions, and insisting that it show its work.

Why “Design-first” matters: shifting quality left, but starting from architecture

There are at least two schools of thought in modern software development:

  • Design/architecture up front (with iteration): invest early in structure to avoid expensive rewrites.
  • Ship-and-learn: get something working, then refactor as reality clarifies.

AI coding assistants have, so far, tended to amplify the second style—because it’s easy to prompt for a working snippet and hard to prompt for cohesive, evolvable systems. That’s where design-first tries to push back.

According to DevOps.com, the Design-first spec is meant to ensure generated code follows best practices defined by AWS, and it offers high-level design (diagrams/components) or low-level design (algorithms/function signatures). citeturn2search1

Here’s the practical implication: when a developer asks Kiro to create a new service, Kiro is being asked to behave less like a “code vending machine” and more like a slightly impatient staff engineer who insists on writing a design doc first.

Design-first is a response to an enterprise reality: messy codebases

Most enterprise work doesn’t happen in greenfield repos. It happens in:

  • multi-year monoliths with “temporary” adapters that have been permanent since 2018,
  • microservices that multiplied like rabbits and now require a service registry to find the service registry,
  • hybrid cloud deployments where your “source of truth” is a Jira ticket screenshot.

In that world, design-first specs can be useful not because they are perfect, but because they force the agent to externalize assumptions. That’s a win for humans reviewing the output: it’s easier to argue with a design than to reverse-engineer intent from a thousand lines of code the agent generated at 2x speed.

Bug Fix specification: making AI fixes safer (by making them testable)

The second capability—Bug Fix spec—is arguably the more immediately valuable one for day-to-day engineering teams.

Per AWS’s Amit Patel (director of software development for Kiro, as quoted by DevOps.com), developers should define the detailed scenario that caused the error—not only the error message—and they should also explicitly state what must not be modified to avoid introducing new bugs. citeturn2search1

This is the heart of “agentic bug fixing” done responsibly. If you’ve ever tried to fix a bug with nothing but a stack trace and vibes, you know how it ends: a partial fix plus a regression that appears two sprints later, when everyone has forgotten the original context.

“Unchanged Behavior” is a deceptively powerful concept

DevOps.com highlights an “Unchanged Behavior” idea: developers must specify what should not change, which helps address regression risk and trust concerns. citeturn2search1

This is basically an acceptance criterion written in negative space. And it’s useful because AI agents—especially ones asked to “just fix it”—are prone to refactoring around the bug rather than treating it surgically.

In practical terms, an “Unchanged Behavior” constraint might look like:

  • “Do not change the public API contract for /v1/orders.”
  • “Do not modify the database schema.”
  • “Do not change billing calculation results for existing subscriptions.”
  • “Performance must not regress (p95 latency stays under 200ms).”

Those constraints, expressed early, are exactly what a human reviewer would demand. Kiro is trying to bake that demand into the workflow.

Property-based testing: why AWS keeps bringing it up

Both the DevOps.com piece and AWS’s own Kiro materials emphasize property-based testing (PBT) as a way to validate that code matches the specification.

AWS describes using PBT to translate requirements into “executable specifications,” then generate many randomized inputs to test whether properties hold. When tests fail, the system produces a counterexample and can use that signal to guide fixes. citeturn1search3turn2search0

The “property-based” approach isn’t new. The QuickCheck framework popularized it in the Haskell ecosystem starting in 1999, and the concept has spread widely across languages and testing frameworks. citeturn1search13

Why PBT fits AI-generated code better than classic unit tests

Traditional unit tests are often example-based: given input X, expect output Y. That’s great for regression testing known scenarios, but it can miss edge cases—especially in code generated quickly, where the “happy path” works but boundary conditions are underbaked.

PBT is better at exploring the input space. A property might say “sorting is idempotent” or “encoding then decoding yields the original value.” Then the test framework generates a large number of inputs to try to break that property.

In security and robustness contexts, researchers have pointed out that PBT’s strength is input space exploration and its ability to surface edge cases via automatically generated test data and counterexamples. citeturn2search5turn2search4

Shrinking: the debugging feature that turns chaos into a to-do list

One of the best features of PBT is shrinking: when a randomly generated failing case is found, the framework tries to reduce it to the smallest failing input that still breaks the property.

AWS explicitly calls out shrinking in Kiro’s PBT approach, noting that smaller counterexamples are easier for both humans and agents to understand and fix. citeturn2search0

If you’ve ever debugged a failing fuzz test case that looked like it was generated by an angry keyboard, you already appreciate the value of a minimal reproducer. Shrinking is a polite way of saying: “Yes, the universe broke your function, but here is the simplest universe that still breaks it.”

Kiro Powers and the “narrow agent” strategy

AWS is also building a wider ecosystem around Kiro via “Kiro Powers,” which DevOps.com describes as a suite of AI agents trained to automate tasks (such as code review) within narrow guidelines to keep them from straying beyond their assigned purview. citeturn2search1

At re:Invent 2025, AWS framed Kiro Powers as specialized agents that can trigger actions as they observe code being created, using steering files and hooks. The stated goal is to reduce “context rot” and hallucinations by narrowing scope and loading agents only when needed. citeturn1search2

This is consistent with what we’re seeing across the industry: “one big agent that does everything” is the dream, but “many small agents with job descriptions” is the workable step that gets you to production without setting your repo on fire.

Agent scope as a quality control mechanism

One under-discussed risk in agentic development is that autonomy is not a scalar. You don’t just “turn on agents.” You choose:

  • which repos they can read,
  • which branches they can write,
  • which tools they can call (CI, ticketing, cloud APIs),
  • what constitutes “approval,”
  • and what happens when the agent gets stuck.

Specs and specialized agent roles are AWS’s mechanism for encoding those decisions in a repeatable way.

CLI access and the “developers live in terminals” reality

Although the February 24, 2026 DevOps.com item focuses on design-first and bug-fix, it’s worth noting the trajectory: in November 2025, AWS announced general availability for Kiro and added features like CLI invocation, checkpointing/rewind, and multi-root workspaces—features that are fundamentally about operationalizing the agent in real workflows. citeturn0search0turn0search5

This matters because developers don’t want “an AI IDE.” They want AI in the place they already work: editors, terminals, pull requests, CI logs, and incident channels. CLI access makes it easier to integrate Kiro into scripting and automation—useful, but also something security teams will want to watch carefully.

Pricing and adoption: Kiro is no longer just a preview toy

AWS is also making Kiro feel like a real product with real pricing. On Kiro’s pricing page, the published tiers include Free, Pro ($20/month), Pro+ ($40/month), and Power ($200/month), each with a different number of monthly credits. citeturn1search0

Separate Kiro blog material from August 2025 discusses pricing updates and onboarding waitlists, reflecting the demand surge Kiro saw early on. citeturn1search1turn0news14

This is relevant to the February 2026 update because it signals AWS is treating “code quality” improvements as a competitive differentiator. If you’re charging $200 per user per month for a high-usage tier, you need a story that goes beyond “it writes code faster.” You need a story about trust, correctness, and reduced operational risk.

Competitive landscape: why quality is the battleground for agentic coding tools

AI coding is no longer a novelty category. The market is crowded with assistants, copilots, IDE integrations, and agent frameworks. The differentiator is shifting from “can it produce code” to:

  • Can it work in existing codebases without breaking style, architecture, and implicit contracts?
  • Can it create tests that humans trust?
  • Can it explain what it changed and why?
  • Can it operate within policy (security, compliance, data boundaries)?

Mitch Ashley of Futurum Group, quoted by DevOps.com, argued that moves like Design-first and Bug Fix specs reflect the competitive pressure to prove agent tooling works in “production reality,” especially around surgical fixes in existing codebases. citeturn2search1

That’s exactly right. If an agent can’t safely fix bugs in a mature service without regressions, it won’t be trusted for larger refactors—no matter how pretty the demo is.

Safety, governance, and the uncomfortable truth: agents can break things

It would be irresponsible to talk about “agentic AI that fixes your code” without acknowledging that agentic AI can also break your infrastructure.

In February 2026, the Financial Times reported on AWS incidents involving AI coding tools, including an outage in parts of mainland China linked to actions taken by a Kiro AI agent. AWS has framed the cause as human oversight/user error rather than AI failure, and the reporting notes AWS implemented stronger safeguards afterward. citeturn3news12

Regardless of where you place “blame,” the operational lesson is the same: agentic tools amplify the consequences of permission mistakes. An AI agent with broad write access is not “a helpful assistant.” It’s an automated change system—one that can move faster than your review culture.

What engineering leaders should do before adopting bug-fixing agents broadly

If you’re evaluating Kiro (or any agentic coding tool) for bug fixing and design generation, consider adopting a governance playbook like this:

  • Start in non-production repos: internal tools, prototypes, or service sandboxes.
  • Require human approval on every PR: no direct-to-main changes, even if the agent “seems confident.”
  • Enforce least-privilege tool access: especially for cloud APIs, CI/CD systems, and ticketing automation.
  • Make “Unchanged Behavior” explicit: treat it like a regression budget and encode it as tests where possible. citeturn2search1
  • Use property-based tests selectively: PBT is powerful, but it can also be noisy if properties are poorly specified. citeturn1search3turn2search4
  • Audit what the agent reads: specs and steering files can unintentionally include sensitive context if teams are careless.

None of this is unique to AWS. It’s just the cost of doing “autonomy” in software engineering without inviting a compliance incident—or a Friday night outage—into your calendar.

How Kiro’s approach fits into the broader “MCP + tool ecosystem” era

One of the structural trends powering agentic tooling is standardization of “how agents talk to tools.” AWS’s Kiro ecosystem references integration points like MCP servers in the broader agent space.

Anthropic’s Model Context Protocol (MCP) is an open protocol meant to standardize how applications provide context and tool access to LLMs—think of it as a consistent interface for connecting models to data sources and actions. citeturn3search0

That matters because “agentic coding” quickly becomes “agentic everything”: code review, ticket updates, build pipelines, observability lookups, security scanning, and so on. Each added tool is also an added attack surface, and recent reporting about vulnerabilities in MCP tooling has underscored that these connectors need serious security attention. citeturn3news14

In other words, agents aren’t only a coding conversation anymore. They’re becoming part of the software supply chain. That raises the bar for quality controls—exactly what AWS is trying to address with Design-first and Bug Fix specs.

Realistic expectations: where Kiro’s new specs can help (and where they won’t)

Let’s put the marketing aside and talk about where this kind of feature tends to succeed.

Where Design-first specs shine

  • New services that need a consistent blueprint: especially in orgs with strong platform standards.
  • Teams onboarding new engineers: a generated design doc can be a forcing function for clarity.
  • Complex integrations: where you need to list components, boundaries, data flows, and failure modes explicitly.

Where Design-first specs struggle

  • Highly novel domains: if best practices are unclear or shifting, the spec may encode incorrect assumptions.
  • Organizations without agreement on “best practices”: if standards are political, an AI won’t solve the politics.

Where Bug Fix specs shine

  • Reproducible issues: especially when you can describe steps, input, and expected outcome (not just logs).
  • Boundary bugs: off-by-one errors, serialization quirks, invalid state transitions—PBT can help find these. citeturn1search3turn2search0
  • Fixes that need strong regression safety: “Unchanged Behavior” plus tests can keep changes surgical. citeturn2search1

Where Bug Fix specs struggle

  • Non-deterministic bugs: race conditions, timing issues, distributed failures—hard to spec, harder to test.
  • Missing observability: if you can’t reproduce it locally or in a test environment, the agent is guessing.
  • Policy and permission constraints: agents can’t fix what they can’t safely access—and they shouldn’t have broad access anyway.

The DevOps angle: fewer regressions is the real ROI

Developers tend to measure AI tools by how quickly they can generate code. DevOps and SRE teams measure them by how often that code causes incidents.

That’s why AWS’s emphasis on “quality” is strategically important. If Kiro’s specs and PBT-based checks reduce regressions, the ROI isn’t just developer time saved—it’s reduced on-call load, fewer rollbacks, and fewer “why did latency spike after the last deploy?” meetings.

In November 2025, AWS also talked about adding checkpointing/rewind and multi-root workspaces, which are subtle but meaningful features for safety and maintainability: being able to roll back agent changes quickly is a pragmatic recognition that sometimes the agent will take you somewhere you didn’t want to go. citeturn0search0turn0search5

Bottom line

AWS’s February 24, 2026 update to Kiro is not about making the agent “more creative.” It’s about making the agent more predictable—and in enterprise software, predictability is the feature you pay for.

By adding Design-first and Bug Fix specifications, AWS is trying to operationalize a thesis: that agentic coding tools will only be trusted when they behave like disciplined engineers—writing down intent, respecting constraints, and proving correctness with tests.

Will it work? The direction is sound. But as recent industry reporting reminds us, agentic tools don’t just change how code gets written—they change how mistakes scale. The teams that win with Kiro (and tools like it) will be the ones that pair these new capabilities with robust review, least privilege, and the boring-but-essential craft of defining what “good” looks like before code hits production.

Sources

Bas Dorland, Technology Journalist & Founder of dorland.org