RIPP

Build fast. Ship safely. Regenerate always.

Intent as Protocol

Intent as Protocol

Category: Protocol Design Philosophy

Definition

Intent as protocol is the practice of treating intent—the “why” and “what” of a feature—as a first-class protocol artifact that is structured, versioned, and machine-validatable, rather than embedded in conversations, code comments, or tribal knowledge.

RIPP™ is a protocol for capturing and preserving intent in a durable, executable format that survives implementation, deployment, and maintenance.

Why Intent Must Be a Protocol

The Traditional Approach (Intent as Artifact)

In traditional software development, intent exists in various forms:

Problem: These artifacts are disconnected from execution. They describe intent but provide no mechanism for:

Result: Intent erodes. The “why” gets lost. Features ship with assumptions that were never documented.

The RIPP Approach (Intent as Protocol)

RIPP treats intent as a protocol specification:

Key insight: When intent is a protocol, it becomes infrastructure. You can’t ship code without it, just like you can’t ship without tests or builds.

Why State, Policy, and Prompts Are Insufficient Alone

RIPP exists because other paradigms solve related but different problems:

State-Based Systems (IaC, GitOps)

What they solve: “What is the desired state of infrastructure?”

Example: Terraform, Kubernetes manifests

Strength: Declarative resource definitions, idempotent deployments

Limitation: State describes “what exists,” not “why it exists” or “who can use it”

# IaC: Describes state
resource "aws_instance" "web" {
  instance_type = "t2.micro"
  # No intent: Why t2.micro? Who decided? What value does it provide?
}

RIPP complements IaC: RIPP captures the intent (why this instance size, for what workload, with what assumptions). IaC implements the state.

Policy-Based Systems (Policy-as-Code)

What they solve: “Who can do what, under which conditions?”

Example: Open Policy Agent (OPA), AWS IAM policies

Strength: Runtime enforcement of authorization rules

Limitation: Policies enforce boundaries but don’t capture the feature’s purpose, UX flow, or data contracts

# Policy: Enforces rules
allow {
  input.user.role == "admin"
  input.action == "delete"
  # No intent: Why only admins? What are they deleting? What's the value?
}

RIPP complements policy-as-code: RIPP defines why the permission exists and what it protects. Policy engines enforce it at runtime.

Prompt-Based Systems (AI Coding Assistants)

What they solve: “Generate code from natural language”

Example: GitHub Copilot, ChatGPT code generation

Strength: Rapid prototyping, code synthesis from descriptions

Limitation: Prompts are ephemeral. Intent exists only in the conversation log, not in a durable, versioned specification

# Prompt: Describes intent informally
"Build a user registration endpoint with email validation"
# No contract: What fields are required? What error codes? Who can register?

RIPP complements prompt-based workflows: RIPP provides the specification that makes AI-generated code production-ready. Prompt to prototype, RIPP to production.

Why a Protocol, Not a Tool?

RIPP is a protocol, not a tool or framework.

Protocol Characteristics

Tool Characteristics

Why this matters: RIPP packets are durable. Even if RIPP tooling disappears, the packets remain valid, human-readable YAML/JSON that preserves intent.

Intent as Protocol in Practice

Traditional Workflow (Intent Erosion)

Idea (in someone's head)
  ↓
User story (high-level, conversational)
  ↓
Code implementation (intent embedded in comments)
  ↓
Production deployment (original "why" lost)
  ↓
6 months later: "Why does it work this way?" (archaeology through Git/Slack)

Result: Intent erodes. The “why” is lost. Refactoring is risky.

RIPP Workflow (Intent Preservation)

Idea (in someone's head)
  ↓
RIPP packet (structured, validated specification)
  ↓
Review and approval (intent explicit and reviewable)
  ↓
Code implementation (guided by RIPP contract)
  ↓
Production deployment (RIPP packet versioned alongside code)
  ↓
6 months later: Read the RIPP packet (intent is preserved)

Result: Intent is durable. The “why” and “how” are always available. Refactoring references the spec.

What Makes Intent “Executable”?

RIPP packets are executable in the sense that they:

  1. Define contracts: Data structures, API endpoints, permissions
  2. Enable validation: Automated schema checks, conformance testing
  3. Guide implementation: Developers build to the spec, not guesses
  4. Support regeneration: Features can be rebuilt from the RIPP packet

Executable does NOT mean:

Executable DOES mean:

Summary: Why Intent as Protocol Matters

Without Intent as Protocol With RIPP (Intent as Protocol)
Intent scattered across docs and code Intent in one versioned specification
No machine validation of completeness Automated schema validation
“Why” lost after 6 months “Why” preserved in RIPP packet
Refactoring requires archaeology Refactoring references the RIPP spec
Code review lacks authoritative spec Code review compares to approved RIPP
AI-generated code has no durable spec RIPP governs what AI is allowed to do
Prototypes ship without production rigor RIPP bridges prototype to production

Relationship to Other Paradigms

RIPP coexists with and complements:

RIPP is not a replacement. It’s a layer above.

Next Steps

Key Principle: Intent is infrastructure. If you can’t version it, validate it, and review it, it will erode.