4.9 KiB
| title | description |
|---|---|
| Team Brief Examples – Agent Teams Docs | Practical team brief templates for small fixes, docs work, implementation tasks, reviews, and high-risk areas. |
Team Brief Examples
A good team brief gives the lead enough structure to create small tasks without forcing every implementation detail upfront.
Use this shape:
Outcome:
Scope:
Boundaries:
Coordination:
Verification:
Review:
Minimal brief
Use for small, low-risk work.
Outcome: Improve the quickstart so a new user can launch one team successfully.
Scope: Keep edits inside landing/product-docs.
Boundaries: Do not rewrite the whole docs structure.
Coordination: Create one or two tasks, keep comments on the task.
Verification: Run `pnpm --dir landing docs:build`.
Review: Summarize changed pages and any remaining gaps.
Implementation brief
Use when code changes touch one feature area.
Outcome: Add a focused improvement to task comment filtering.
Scope: Work inside the task/comment feature files unless a shared helper is clearly needed.
Boundaries: Do not change task storage format or review state semantics.
Coordination: Split parser, UI, and tests into separate tasks if they can be reviewed independently.
Verification: Run the focused unit tests first, then the feature typecheck if touched.
Review: Call out parsing edge cases and any behavior that affects existing task comments.
Docs brief
Use for documentation and guide work.
Outcome: Draft practical workflow guides from the docs audit.
Scope: Add concise VitePress pages under landing/product-docs/guide.
Boundaries: Avoid moving existing navigation hubs owned by other tasks.
Coordination: Check related docs tasks before editing nav.
Verification: Run `pnpm --dir landing docs:build`.
Review: Include links added to sidebar and any pages intentionally left as drafts.
Review-heavy brief
Use for risky areas such as IPC, provider auth, persistence, Git, or task lifecycle logic.
Outcome: Fix the launch failure without changing successful launch behavior.
Scope: Start from the newest launch-failure artifact and the affected runtime adapter.
Boundaries: Do not change provider prompts until setup and runtime evidence are inspected.
Coordination: Make one diagnostic task and one fix task if the cause is confirmed.
Verification: Run focused tests and one desktop smoke check when practical.
Review: Lead must inspect the diff before approval.
Mixed provider brief
Use when teammates run different provider/model lanes.
Outcome: Implement and review a small feature using separate builder and reviewer lanes.
Scope: Builder edits the feature. Reviewer inspects only the task diff and tests.
Boundaries: Do not switch model ids mid-task unless launch fails before work begins.
Coordination: Builder posts result comment first. Reviewer posts findings as task comments.
Verification: Builder runs focused tests. Reviewer checks failure output and changed scope.
Review: Lead approves only after reviewer comments are resolved.
Agent blocks in briefs
Agent blocks are hidden agent-only text wrapped in markers such as <info_for_agent>...</info_for_agent>. The app strips them from normal display but keeps them available for agent coordination. Use them when the brief needs to say something to agents that would be noise for a human reader.
Example - a brief that tells the lead how to split work without exposing coordination instructions to the user:
Outcome: Add a dark mode toggle to the application settings.
Scope: Settings UI, theme context, and CSS variables.
Boundaries: Do not change existing light theme values or provider auth screens.
<info_for_agent>
Split this into three tasks: (1) theme context and CSS vars, (2) toggle component and settings wiring, (3) dark mode preview in existing docs screenshots if practical.
</info_for_agent>
The block keeps the human-facing brief clean while giving the lead structured task-splitting guidance.
What to avoid
| Weak brief | Better replacement |
|---|---|
| "Improve the app" | Name the workflow, files, and success check |
| "Fix all docs" | Pick one guide group and one build command |
| "Use the best model" | Name provider/model choices or let the app defaults stand |
| "Refactor as needed" | State which modules are allowed to change |
| "Make it production ready" | Define review, tests, and rollout checks |
Before launch
Check these points before starting the team:
- The brief names a concrete outcome.
- Risk boundaries are explicit.
- The lead can split the work into reviewable tasks.
- Verification commands are included when known.
- Sensitive areas require review before approval.
If the brief is still broad, launch a solo or small team first and ask it to produce a task plan rather than implementation.