You have to go all in on agentic engineering. And if you're all in on agentic engineering and doing it well, then anyone should be able to build safely and no one needs to look at code. The code should look highly consistent and agents should be enforcing best practices, approved architecture, running security scanning, etc.
The gains at the middleground compromise are not really significant and, IMO, creates frustration and friction.
Works best to go all in. GS should let everyone have CC and GH and focus on making their enterprise harness safer for everyone.
And, no, it doesn't actually work. Agentic engineering is a myth by people who got high on their own farts.
Key is to get folks to unload their heuristics and rules they use for their daily workflow and judgement.
What does good code look like? What are you looking for when reviewing code? What anti-patterns are your senior devs looking for? How can you see the evidence of agent adherence?
Some of it comes down to system architecture and essentially creating rails. Agents are very good at following patterns and copying existing code (it's all just text). Establishing strong patterns, documenting them, and creating deterministic checks (linters, analyzers) helps unlock broader audience of builders.
There's nothing that fundamentally cannot be written down as a set of heuristics and given to agents to enforce except that most folks in software are very bad at writing.