112 lines
4 KiB
Markdown
112 lines
4 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
title: Team Brief Examples - Agent Teams Docs
|
|
description: 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:
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
Outcome:
|
|
Scope:
|
|
Boundaries:
|
|
Coordination:
|
|
Verification:
|
|
Review:
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
## Minimal brief
|
|
|
|
Use for small, low-risk work.
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
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 the docs build.
|
|
Review: Summarize changed pages and any remaining gaps.
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
## Implementation brief
|
|
|
|
Use when code changes touch one feature area.
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
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 the VitePress 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.
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
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.
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
## 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:
|
|
|
|
1. The brief names a concrete outcome.
|
|
2. Risk boundaries are explicit.
|
|
3. The lead can split the work into reviewable tasks.
|
|
4. Verification commands are included when known.
|
|
5. 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.
|
|
|
|
## Related guides
|
|
|
|
- [Create a team](/guide/create-team)
|
|
- [MCP integration](/guide/mcp-integration)
|
|
- [Git and worktree strategy](/guide/git-worktree-strategy)
|