Prime Agent Delegation Protocol
Detailed protocol for Prime Agent task delegation including decision trees, delegation matrix, and best practices for orchestrating multi-agent workflows.
Overview
This protocol provides Prime Agent with systematic guidance for delegating work to specialized agents. Effective delegation is key to efficient project delivery and team productivity.
Core Delegation Principles
1. Know Your Agents’ Specialties
Feature Developer: Implementation, coding, system architecture
- Implements features from specifications
- Writes and tests code
- Handles technical implementation challenges
Code Reviewer: Quality assurance, standards compliance, security
- Reviews code for quality
- Validates adherence to standards
- Identifies potential issues
QA Engineer: Testing, investigation, debugging, validation
- Investigates bugs and issues
- Creates test plans
- Validates fixes and deployments
Technical Writer: Documentation, knowledge management
- Creates and updates documentation
- Writes release notes
- Maintains knowledge base
Workflow Enforcer: Process, deployment, infrastructure
- Manages deployment processes
- Validates workflow compliance
- Handles production deployments
2. Delegate, Don’t Do
Common mistakes Prime Agent makes:
WRONG: Prime Agent investigates the bug RIGHT: Prime Agent delegates to QA Engineer
WRONG: Prime Agent writes the fix RIGHT: Prime Agent delegates to Feature Developer
WRONG: Prime Agent creates tests RIGHT: Prime Agent delegates to QA Engineer
WRONG: Prime Agent deploys to production RIGHT: Prime Agent delegates to Workflow Enforcer
3. Clear, Specific Delegation
Every delegation should include:
- What: Clear description of the task
- Why: Context and business rationale
- Scope: Boundaries of what to do/not do
- When: Timeline and deadlines
- Reference: Issue links, related work, context
- Definition of Done: What success looks like
Delegation Decision Matrix
For Investigation/Debug Work
Issue Type Delegate To Reasoning
────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Bug report QA Engineer Investigation expertise
Error in logs QA Engineer Debugging skills
Regression QA Engineer Testing and comparison
User complaint QA Engineer Impact assessment
Performance issue QA Engineer Analysis and profiling
Inconsistent result QA Engineer Root cause investigation
For Implementation Work
Task Type Delegate To Reasoning
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────
New feature Feature Developer Coding expertise
Bug fix Feature Developer Implementation skills
Code refactoring Feature Developer Architecture knowledge
Integration work Feature Developer System knowledge
Configuration Feature Developer Technical setup
Performance opt. Feature Developer Optimization skills
For Testing/Validation Work
Task Type Delegate To Reasoning
───────────────────────────────────────────────────
Test creation QA Engineer Test design expertise
Test execution QA Engineer Testing methodology
Regression testing QA Engineer Comparison skills
Deployment validation QA Engineer Environment testing
Fix verification QA Engineer Testing expertise
Acceptance testing QA Engineer Requirements validation
For Code Quality Work
Task Type Delegate To Reasoning
───────────────────────────────────────────────────
Code review Code Reviewer Quality expertise
Standard compliance Code Reviewer Standards knowledge
Security review Code Reviewer Security expertise
Architecture review Code Reviewer Design knowledge
Test coverage check Code Reviewer Testing knowledge
Documentation review Code Reviewer Clarity expertise
For Documentation Work
Task Type Delegate To Reasoning
────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Release notes Technical Writer Documentation skills
User documentation Technical Writer Writing expertise
API documentation Technical Writer Technical clarity
Tutorial creation Technical Writer Teaching approach
README updates Technical Writer Knowledge management
Knowledge base Technical Writer Organization skills
For Deployment Work
Task Type Delegate To Reasoning
────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Pre-deployment check Workflow Enforcer Process validation
Deployment execution Workflow Enforcer DevOps expertise
Rollback preparation Workflow Enforcer Infrastructure knowledge
Production deployment Workflow Enforcer Deployment expertise
Infrastructure config Workflow Enforcer System administration
Process verification Workflow Enforcer Compliance check
Delegation Templates
Bug Investigation Delegation
To: QA Engineer
Subject: Investigate [Issue #XXX]: [Bug Description]
Please investigate the following issue:
ISSUE: [Clear description of reported problem]
AFFECTED AREA: [What part of the system is affected]
IMPACT: [How many users affected, severity]
REPRODUCTION: [Steps to reproduce if known]
ENVIRONMENT: [Where it occurs: dev/test/prod]
INVESTIGATION SCOPE:
- Determine root cause
- Identify if regression or new issue
- Assess impact severity
- Document findings
REFERENCE ARTIFACTS:
- Issue: #XXX
- Related commits: [commit hashes]
- Test environment: [URL or location]
TIMELINE: [Expected completion date]
DEFINITION OF DONE:
- Root cause clearly identified and documented
- Impact assessment completed
- Report with recommendations provided
- Ready for Feature Developer to fix
Thank you!
Feature Implementation Delegation
To: Feature Developer
Subject: Implement [Issue #XXX]: [Feature Name]
Please implement the following feature:
FEATURE: [Clear feature description]
BUSINESS VALUE: [Why this feature matters]
USER STORY: [As a [user], I want to [action], so that [benefit]]
REQUIREMENTS:
- [Requirement 1]
- [Requirement 2]
- [Requirement 3]
ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA:
- [Criteria 1 - testable and clear]
- [Criteria 2 - testable and clear]
- [Criteria 3 - testable and clear]
TECHNICAL CONTEXT:
- Related systems: [What systems this touches]
- Architecture considerations: [Design notes]
- Technology stack: [Relevant tools/frameworks]
- Constraints: [Any limitations]
REFERENCE ARTIFACTS:
- Issue: #XXX
- Design doc: [URL if exists]
- Related issues: [#XXX, #YYY]
- Prototype: [URL if exists]
TESTING REQUIREMENTS:
- Local testing required: [Specific scenarios]
- Docker testing server: [URL]
- Test approval by: [Who needs to verify]
TIMELINE: [Expected completion date]
EFFORT ESTIMATE: [Small/Medium/Large]
DEFINITION OF DONE:
- Code implemented per requirements
- Local testing completed and verified
- Docker testing server deployment passes
- PR created and ready for review
- All acceptance criteria met
Thank you!
Code Review Delegation
To: Code Reviewer
Subject: Review PR [#XXX]: [Feature/Fix Name]
Please review the following pull request:
PR: #XXX - [PR Title]
FEATURE/FIX: [What was implemented]
BRANCH: [feature/XXX-description]
REVIEW FOCUS:
- Code quality and standards compliance
- Test coverage adequacy
- Security implications
- Performance considerations
- Documentation completeness
- Architectural alignment
CONTEXT:
- Issue being addressed: #XXX
- Feature requirements: [Link to issue]
- Design decisions: [Any notes on approach]
- Known limitations: [Any trade-offs made]
ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR REVIEW:
- Code follows project standards
- Test coverage is adequate (>80%)
- Security concerns addressed
- No critical issues identified
- Documentation is accurate and complete
TIMELINE: [Expected review completion]
APPROVAL REQUIRED FOR:
- Feature completeness
- Code quality (minimum 8/10)
- Test adequacy (minimum 80% coverage)
- Documentation accuracy
Thank you!
Testing/QA Delegation
To: QA Engineer
Subject: Test and Validate [Issue #XXX]: [Feature Name]
Please test and validate the following implementation:
FEATURE/FIX: [What's being tested]
PR: #XXX
TESTING SERVER: [URL or location]
BRANCH: [Branch to test]
TEST SCENARIOS:
- [Scenario 1: Expected behavior]
- [Scenario 2: Expected behavior]
- [Scenario 3: Edge case]
- [Scenario 4: Error handling]
ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA:
- [Criterion 1 - verifiable]
- [Criterion 2 - verifiable]
- [Criterion 3 - verifiable]
REGRESSION TESTING:
- Check [Feature 1] still works
- Check [Feature 2] still works
- Check [Feature 3] still works
ENVIRONMENTS TO TEST:
- Local development
- Docker testing server
- Browser compatibility: [Chrome, Firefox, Safari]
- Device compatibility: [Mobile, tablet, desktop]
SIGN-OFF BY: [Who needs to approve]
TIMELINE: [Expected completion]
DEFINITION OF DONE:
- All test scenarios passed
- No regressions detected
- All environments verified
- Feature-ready or blockers documented
- Ready for deployment or escalation
Thank you!
Documentation Delegation
To: Technical Writer
Subject: Document [Issue #XXX]: [Feature Name]
Please create documentation for the following:
FEATURE/CHANGE: [What's being documented]
RELATED PR: #XXX
ISSUE: #XXX
VERSION: [Version number this is released in]
DOCUMENTATION NEEDED:
- Release notes update
- Website overview update
- Feature user guide
- Administrator guide
- Architecture documentation
- API documentation
AUDIENCE:
- End users: [What they need to know]
- Developers: [Technical details needed]
- Administrators: [Configuration/deployment info]
STYLE GUIDE:
- Keep it clear and concise
- Use active voice, present tense
- Include examples where helpful
- Link to related resources
ARTIFACTS TO INCLUDE:
- Code examples: [Files or snippets]
- Configuration examples: [Sample configs]
- Screenshots: [UI elements to document]
- Architecture diagrams: [Needed diagrams]
REVIEW BY: [Who needs to verify accuracy]
TIMELINE: [Expected completion]
DEFINITION OF DONE:
- All sections complete and accurate
- Examples working and tested
- Hugo site builds successfully
- Links validated
- Ready for publication
Thank you!
Decision Tree for Delegation
Task/Issue Identified
│
├─ Is it a problem that needs investigation?
│ │
│ ├─ YES → Delegate to QA Engineer
│ │ "Investigate [issue description]"
│ │ Wait for findings report
│ │
│ └─ NO → Continue to next question
│
├─ Does it require code implementation?
│ │
│ ├─ YES → Delegate to Feature Developer
│ │ "Implement [feature specification]"
│ │ Wait for PR and testing
│ │
│ └─ NO → Continue to next question
│
├─ Does it require code quality verification?
│ │
│ ├─ YES → Delegate to Code Reviewer
│ │ "Review PR [PR number]"
│ │ Wait for approval/feedback
│ │
│ └─ NO → Continue to next question
│
├─ Does it require testing and validation?
│ │
│ ├─ YES → Delegate to QA Engineer
│ │ "Test and validate [feature]"
│ │ Wait for test report
│ │
│ └─ NO → Continue to next question
│
├─ Does it require documentation?
│ │
│ ├─ YES → Delegate to Technical Writer
│ │ "Document [feature/change]"
│ │ Wait for documentation completion
│ │
│ └─ NO → Continue to next question
│
└─ Does it require deployment?
│
├─ YES → Delegate to Workflow Enforcer
│ "Deploy [feature] to [environment]"
│ Wait for deployment confirmation
│
└─ NO → Task may be complete or needs escalation
Anti-Patterns to Avoid
1. Asking the Wrong Agent
WRONG: Asking QA Engineer to implement a feature RIGHT: Ask QA Engineer to test the feature after Feature Developer implements it
WRONG: Asking Feature Developer to create the release notes RIGHT: Ask Technical Writer to create release notes after Feature Developer completes PR
WRONG: Asking Code Reviewer to investigate a bug RIGHT: Ask QA Engineer to investigate, then Feature Developer to fix
2. Unclear Delegation
WRONG: “Can you fix this issue?” RIGHT: “Please investigate issue #XXX. Root cause analysis needed by EOD. Document findings in issue comments.”
WRONG: “Implement the new feature” RIGHT: “Implement the new feature per acceptance criteria in issue #XXX. Testing server deployment needed for stakeholder approval. Expected completion: Friday EOD.”
3. Scope Creep
WRONG: “While you’re at it, can you also optimize that performance?” RIGHT: (Create separate task) “Create new issue #XXX for performance optimization. This is separate from current task.”
4. Missing Context
WRONG: Delegate without issue number or background RIGHT: Include issue number, link to requirements, reference related work
5. No Follow-Up
WRONG: Delegate and wait until deadline to check progress RIGHT: Schedule check-in at 50% completion, verify no blockers
Monitoring Delegation Progress
Initial Setup
- Send clear delegation message
- Confirm receipt and understanding
- Clarify any questions immediately
- Document in issue or tracking system
During Execution
- Check progress at planned intervals
- Respond quickly to questions
- Help unblock if issues arise
- Monitor for scope creep
At Completion
- Review deliverable against specification
- Accept or request revisions
- Document lessons learned
- Thank the agent for their work
After Completion
- Update stakeholders on status
- Prepare for next phase
- Plan handoff to next agent if needed
- Document workflow for future reference
Handling Delegation Problems
Agent Reports Blocker
- Listen: Understand the blocker clearly
- Assess: Determine if it’s truly blocking
- Act: Either resolve immediately or escalate
- Communicate: Update all affected parties
- Follow-Up: Verify blocker is resolved
Agent Misunderstands Task
- Clarify: Explain misunderstanding clearly
- Correct: Provide clear direction
- Confirm: Verify new understanding
- Adjust Timeline: If needed based on rework
- Document: Prevent similar issues
Agent Exceeds Scope
- Review: Understand scope expansion
- Assess: Is it valuable or out of scope?
- Decide: Approve scope change or redirect
- Communicate: Update timeline and expectations
- Document: Track scope changes
Delegation Takes Longer Than Expected
- Investigate: Find out why
- Assess: Is timeline realistic?
- Decide: Adjust timeline or reassign
- Communicate: Update stakeholders
- Support: Help remove obstacles
Success Metrics
Delegation Effectiveness
- Accuracy: Does deliverable match specification? (Target: 95%+)
- Quality: Does deliverable meet quality standards? (Target: 90%+)
- Timeliness: Does deliverable arrive on schedule? (Target: 90%+)
- Completeness: Are all acceptance criteria met? (Target: 100%)
Communication Quality
- Clarity: Is delegation understood clearly? (Target: 95%+)
- Responsiveness: Are questions answered quickly? (Target: same day)
- Completeness: Is context sufficient? (Target: 95%+)
- Documentation: Are decisions recorded? (Target: 100%)
Continuous Improvement
Review delegation effectiveness monthly:
- What Worked: Capture successful patterns
- What Didn’t: Identify problem areas
- What Changed: Adapt based on learnings
- What’s Next: Improve for future delegations
Last Updated: January 16, 2026 Version: 1.0 Status: Published
Feedback
Was this page helpful?
Glad to hear it! Please tell us how we can improve.
Sorry to hear that. Please tell us how we can improve.