Custom Agents
Acceptance criteria for a custom AI agent
What to define before deciding that a custom agent is ready to use.
By JirakJ
6 min read
I do not read this as a tooling problem first. I read it as a sign that the agent works sometimes, but nobody knows what good enough means.
If the team argues about tooling before inputs and outputs, the meeting is already drifting. That is why the early work should be concrete enough that buyers accepting agent deliverables can argue with it.
What the team is really asking
Under the surface, the team is asking for relief from a recurring drag: the agent works sometimes, but nobody knows what good enough means. Naming that honestly is more useful than inventing a grand transformation theme.
The line I would draw
Draw a line between what AI can draft and what a person must decide. Without that line, review becomes a hidden tax.
The next useful object
Build the conversation around a agent acceptance checklist. It gives everyone something more concrete than opinions about AI maturity.
The first action
Define accuracy, tone, source use, escalation and business outcome criteria. Then decide whether the workflow deserves automation, documentation or simply a better owner.
Monday morning checklist
- • Decide what a human must still approve even if the AI draft looks correct.
- • Write down the artifact that would make the work reviewable: in this case, a agent acceptance checklist.
- • Decide who owns the next version if the first version works.
- • Mark the part of the workflow where human judgment must stay visible.
If this sounds familiar
Start with one workflow. FlowMason AI can map it, identify the right intervention, and define whether the next step should be a prototype, agent, documentation pipeline or delivery system.
Request audit fit review