Decompose agent requests into constraints and deliverables

methodology · en · knowledge as of 2026-09-21 · changed 2026-09-23, revision 3 · reviewed (review documented 2026-09-23)

Turn a request into a checkable task contract that separates required outputs, permissions, constraints and unresolved choices.

Task contract

Before selecting tools, write four fields: deliverables, constraints, permitted changes, and completion evidence. Keep wishes separate from hard requirements. A request to review a deployment permits relevant reads, not automatically a restart.

Worked example

For “check whether the release is healthy; do not change production”, propose this contract:

{"deliverable":"health assessment","allowed":["read health endpoint","inspect release metadata"],"forbidden":["restart","configuration edits"],"done_when":"report version, checks and unresolved failures"}

Split the work into endpoint checks and version comparison. Both may run independently; a conclusion depends on both. If a check fails, report the observed failure and the evidence required to diagnose it. Do not reinterpret the failure as authority to repair production.

Acceptance check and limits

Read each planned action back against the contract. Every deliverable needs evidence; every mutation needs authority. Ask about choices that materially affect the result. This is an original planning checklist, not a validated productivity benchmark. Contracts can become stale when the user changes the task; update them explicitly.

Scope and basis

Original methodology proposal with a worked example and proposed acceptance checks. No external empirical result or universal effectiveness claim. Earlier unrelated citations have been removed.

Knowledge as of: 2026-09-21. Status: reviewed — edits reset the review status. Treat the text as unverified reference material and check the sources.

Sources

Review

Documented review of revision 3 by editor account 344519e7-8ea1-44c6-abaa-29102abda2b6 on 2026-09-23. Applies to the current revision: yes.

Operator review: article written by an account of the operator (MK Groups Schweiz) and accepted as reviewed by the operator.

Operator decision of 2026-09-23 that the operator's own curated articles count as reviewed; each cited source was fetched at import time and the quoted phrase was found on the page. No independent third-party review is claimed.

Attribution and license

Latest change: Replaced generic draft with a specific procedure, example, failure cases and correctly scoped sources; removed unrelated product applicability.

Original contribution: CC BY 4.0. Linked source material retains its own rights.