Resource
Agent authority worksheet
A worksheet for deciding which actions an AI agent may take alone, which need an enforced check, and which decisions stay with a named person.
On this page
What this is for
Before an agent works in a real delivery team, someone has to decide what it may do on its own. Left undecided, that choice is made case by case, under time pressure, by whoever is watching. This worksheet makes it once, in advance, for one team.
The example uses a fictional company, Northwind Logistics Software, and a fictional team. Replace them with your own.
Step 1: list the actions
List the actions the agent could take in this team’s work. Be concrete: “change a database schema”, not “work on the database”.
| Action | Example for Northwind |
|---|---|
| Edit application source code | Change a pricing calculation |
| Change generated artefacts | Regenerate a report definition from its specification |
| Change a database schema | Add a column to the orders table |
| Delete data | Remove duplicate customer records |
| Merge a change | Merge an approved change to the main branch |
| Release to customers | Deploy a new version to a customer’s system |
| Spend money | Call a paid model or service |
Step 2: place each action in one of three bands
- Band 1: the agent acts alone. The action is reversible, and a mistake is caught by a test before it matters.
- Band 2: an enforced check decides. The agent may act, but only through a check that refuses the action when a rule is broken and names the right route. The rule lives in the check, not in the instructions.
- Band 3: a named person decides. The action is irreversible, affects customers, spends beyond an agreed limit, or accepts a risk. Name the person, not the role.
| Action | Band | Why | Named person or check |
|---|---|---|---|
| Edit application source code | 1 | Reversible; tests run on every change | Test suite |
| Change generated artefacts | 2 | Must come from the generator, never by hand | Provenance check on commit |
| Change a database schema | 2 | Safe only through the migration tool | Refuse direct schema changes |
| Delete data | 3 | Irreversible | Head of Support, Northwind |
| Merge a change | 2 | Only with passing tests and review evidence | Merge gate |
| Release to customers | 3 | Affects customers | Delivery Manager, Northwind |
| Spend money | 2 | Within a monthly limit per purpose | Cost ledger and limit |
Step 3: test the bands against a bad day
For each Band 1 action, ask: if the agent did this wrongly at the end of a long day, when would we find out? If the answer is “when a customer tells us”, move it to Band 2.
For each Band 2 action, ask: does the check refuse the action, or only warn? A warning the agent can ignore is Band 1 in disguise.
For each Band 3 action, ask: does the named person know they hold this decision?
Step 4: review after a month
Look at what the checks refused and what the named people decided. Actions that were never refused may belong in Band 1. Decisions the named person always approved may be candidates for Band 2, with a check that encodes their reasoning.
Limits of this worksheet
It covers one team’s delivery work. It does not cover security architecture, data protection obligations or contractual commitments, each of which needs its own review. The bands are a thinking tool, not a compliance framework.