Aglet

Investigate How an Agent Task Became Oversized

Investigation should explain which scope change made the task hard to finish or review. Compare the original brief with additions, changed objectives, new sources, and unresolved dependencies, then replay a bounded slice. Keep legitimate expansion separate from an absent stopping rule.

Build a useful investigation brief

  1. Build a scope timeline

    Record the original request, each added question or source, the person or event that introduced it, and the intended benefit. Mark when the primary decision changed or became implicit. Preserve versions and timestamps so memory does not turn gradual expansion into a single cause.

  2. Map evidence coupling

    For each scope item, list sources, transformations, comparisons, owner, and review standard. Identify shared artifacts and independent paths, then show which additions increased evidence or handoff burden. Check for duplicated work hidden under broad terms such as audit or improve.

  3. Replay a bounded slice

    Run the original or highest-leverage slice with its stated inputs and stop rule. Compare time, evidence, output, and review clarity with the oversized task. If the slice still expands, identify the missing decision or unresolved dependency that makes its boundary unstable.

What to carry forward

Produce a scope investigation with timeline, coupled evidence map, expansion points, bounded replay, and tested explanations. Recommend a split, clarified decision, or dependency handoff. Do not blame scope growth on collaboration when the record only shows an initial brief that lacked a stopping condition.

Keep the decision with the work.

Use a Work Item in Aglet to record the problem, the evidence you have, and the next decision. Add an owner and priority, then keep updates in the discussion so the next person can follow the reasoning.

Create an account See the product workflow