Skip to content
ConoceNivel 0 · by MetodologIAGo to MetodologIA
Your position · Module 4 of 4Agentic workView module in Resources
Module 04 · Workbook

Workbook: first agentic pilot

Move from a candidate task to a supervised mission with limits, evidence and a continuation decision.

From automating to governing

Pilot an agentic workflow with visible control.

An agent without an owner, permissions or an escalation path creates operational risk. Speed adds value only while the process remains governable.

What you will produce

The team finishes with a prioritized case, accountable owner, minimum permissions, human gates, auditable evidence and an exit criterion.

How to proceed

Prioritize a stable process, assign an owner, bound data and tools, validate the plan, execute in a controlled setting and review the pilot.

What to verify

Keep the approved brief, minimum RACI, permissions, logs, exceptions, result and verdict to continue, correct or close.

00 · How to use this workbook

How to use this workbook

Start in class, deepen through practice, and consolidate only with reviewable evidence.

Class clock in three moments: masterclass, hands-on and closing.
  1. 01

    Frame the caseState the case, desired result and evidence you want to observe.

  2. 02

    Prepare the inputsGather what is needed, acknowledge boundaries and use the three preparation prompts.

  3. 03

    Work in classComplete the essential practice and retain initial evidence.

  4. 04

    Go deeperOpen each detail to review actions, criteria, examples and connections.

  5. 05

    Consolidate and transferMeet the criterion, review the evidence and test the practice in another context.

Orientation

Team pilot, explicit authority

Complete the workbook with a bounded internal process. Every step assigns an owner, reviewer, permissions, dependencies and evidence. In this pilot, any execution happens outside the workbook and requires separate authorization.

Workbook cycle: prepare, practise in class and consolidate.
Use case
Classify internal requests into a draft queue without replying or changing the source system.
You are ready when
The owner accepts the case, a reviewer is named and permissions can be constrained.

Inputs

  • Three candidate processes
  • Owner and reviewer
  • Sources with usage rights
  • Dependencies and restoration
Define your case

Define your case

Write only what is needed to frame the practice. These fields are neither saved nor sent.

Diagnosis map: a challenge observed before choosing the intervention.
Preparation prompts

Preparation prompts

Prompt library with levels and expected evidence.
Go deeper3 · Preparation prompts
01

Filter the case

Reject sensitive or hard-to-reverse cases.

Receives
candidate process list
Produces
Short suitability matrix
List three repeatable cases. Assess frequency, stability, failure impact, observability and reversibility. Recommend one and explain why the others should wait.
02

Inventory evidence

Know which sources may be used and what is missing.

Receives
Mission brief
Produces
Source and gap inventory
List inputs, sources, rights, definition of done and gaps. Mark the gap that requires stopping or asking.
03

Bound authority

Separate reading, proposing, approving and acting.

Receives
Source package and gaps
Produces
Draft permission matrix
Classify each datum, tool and action as allowed, approval required or prohibited. Add owner, reviewer and escalation.
Resources in this module

Agentic work

Turn a repeatable process into supervised delegation with an owner, authorized sources, limits, validation points and traceability.

Stacked deliverables ready to use and review.
All resources
00 · Before you begin

Before you begin

Connected steps that end in a repeatable result.
01

Prerequisites

  • The owner accepts the case, a reviewer is named and permissions can be constrained.
02

Inputs

  • Three candidate processes
  • Owner and reviewer
  • Sources with usage rights
  • Dependencies and restoration
03

Limits

  • Work with a bounded, authorized case.
  • Do not include personal, confidential or restricted data.
  • Stop when evidence, permission or an accountable reviewer is missing.
01–03 · Workbook

Move from a candidate task to a supervised mission with limits, evidence and a continuation decision.

01 · In class

Prepare

Choose a reversible case, set accountability and limit permissions.

1

Choose a reversible case

Compare three processes and choose one that supports learning without exposing a sensitive decision.

Go deeperQuality criteria

How to apply it

  • Describe each case's input and result.
  • Assess stability, failure impact and recovery.
  • Assign a case sponsor and recovery owner.

Quality criteria

  • The case is repeatable and observable.
  • Sponsor and recovery have distinct accountability.
Produces
Suitability matrix with verdict
Example
Synthetic example: classify internal requests into a draft queue.
Avoid
Choose for control, not novelty.
Reflect
What makes this case appropriate for a first pilot?
Connection
The selected case moves to accountability, result and Definition of Done.
Prompts · prompt-01
2

Set accountability and result

Name who decides, who reviews and which output may be accepted.

Go deeperQuality criteria

How to apply it

  • Write the result in observable terms.
  • Assign final decision and review.
  • Name the output owner and separate reviewer.

Quality criteria

  • One human decision is unambiguous.
  • Output, acceptance and dependency have owners.
Produces
Accountability and result card
Example
Synthetic example: the owner accepts classification and the reviewer checks a sample.
Avoid
The agent cannot be owner or approver.
Reflect
Who answers if the output looks right but breaks the contract?
Connection
The card supports classification of data, tools and actions.
Prompts · prompt-02
3

Design permissions and escalation

Grant only the required capability and define what happens at a boundary.

Go deeperQuality criteria

How to apply it

  • Classify authorized data and sources.
  • Separate reading, proposing and acting.
  • Link every permission to custody and revocation.

Quality criteria

  • Every action has explicit permission.
  • Custody and revocation are documented.
Produces
Permission and escalation matrix
Example
Synthetic example: may read an authorized export and propose labels; may not write to the system.
Avoid
Technical access is not authorization.
Reflect
Which permission can you remove without losing the useful draft?
Connection
The matrix feeds the mission brief.
Prompts · prompt-04
02 · Deepening

Pilot

Turn the case into a contract, approve the plan and observe a controlled run.

1

Write the mission brief

Combine objective, context, sources, restrictions and done into one short contract.

Go deeperQuality criteria

How to apply it

  • Define role and bounded objective.
  • Attach sources and known gaps.
  • Align the Mission Brief with acceptance and dependencies.

Quality criteria

  • The brief makes the output testable.
  • The contract assigns acceptance and escalation.
Produces
Versioned mission brief
Example
Synthetic example: produce a draft queue with source and classification reason.
Avoid
Avoid vague verbs such as “manage” or “solve.”
Reflect
Which phrase could be read as undeclared authority?
Connection
The brief becomes a plan subject to approval.
Prompts · prompt-02
2

Review the plan before execution

Require a sequence that respects sources, permissions, gates and recovery.

Go deeperQuality criteria

How to apply it

  • Link every step to source and permission.
  • Place approvals and stop conditions.
  • Record who approves or returns each step.

Quality criteria

  • Every step fits the brief.
  • Every verdict has defined authority.
Produces
Approved, corrected or rejected plan
Example
Synthetic example: approve sandbox classification; reject production writes.
Avoid
An approved objective does not authorize a defective plan.
Reflect
Which step would you change before allowing the test?
Connection
Only an approved plan enters the controlled case.
Prompts · prompt-06
3

Run and record the pilot

Process one controlled case and retain enough evidence to reconstruct decisions and exceptions.

Go deeperQuality criteria

How to apply it

  • Capture inputs and plan version.
  • Log decisions, proposed actions and gates.
  • Give the log to an independent reviewer.

Quality criteria

  • The log connects input, decision and result.
  • The log preserves version, gate and exception.
Produces
Execution and exception log
Example
Synthetic example: keep batch, proposed labels, reviews and rejection; do not sync.
Avoid
A fluent output does not prove compliance.
Reflect
Could you explain why each step was accepted or rejected?
Connection
The log is compared with the definition of done.
Prompts · prompt-07
03 · Consolidation

Transfer

Compare evidence, decide continuity and revalidate before another context.

1

Compare against done

Assess compliance, deviations and evidence without rewarding appearance or speed alone.

Go deeperQuality criteria

How to apply it

  • Review each done criterion.
  • Separate facts, inferences and gaps.
  • Submit the result to the acceptance gate.

Quality criteria

  • Every verdict points to evidence.
  • Acceptance and rejection use the same criteria.
Produces
Compliance and deviation table
Example
Synthetic example: the queue retains sources but three cases lack reasons; it fails.
Avoid
Do not replace criteria with a general impression.
Reflect
Which deviation materially changes the decision?
Connection
Deviations move to recovery and correction.
Prompts · prompt-07
2

Decide keep, adjust or stop

Close the pilot with a verdict, corrections and accountability.

Go deeperQuality criteria

How to apply it

  • Issue one of three decisions.
  • Assign correction and review.
  • Assign correction and exception authority.

Quality criteria

  • The decision relies on pilot evidence.
  • Every correction has an owner and date.
Produces
Continuity decision
Example
Synthetic example: stop until source rights are clear and an owner is assigned.
Avoid
Do not widen scope to rescue a failed pilot.
Reflect
What evidence would change your verdict?
Connection
Only a keep decision opens design of the next case.
Prompts · prompt-08
3

Transfer without scope creep

Reuse the learning and keep the same gates until the new context produces its own evidence.

Go deeperQuality criteria

How to apply it

  • Version brief, permissions and checklist.
  • State what changes in the next case.
  • Approve adoption only after reviewing the new case.

Quality criteria

  • Reused rules and new assumptions are distinct.
  • Adoption preserves rights and a new gate.
Produces
Governed transfer package
Example
Synthetic example: test another category in sandbox while retaining owners and gates.
Avoid
A passed pilot does not certify every case.
Reflect
Which part of the contract becomes invalid when context changes?
Connection
The package feeds the next Masterclass or another bounded pilot.
Prompts · prompt-08
Transfer

Expand autonomy only after the pilot passes; otherwise adjust or stop.

Turn a repeatable process into supervised delegation with an owner, authorized sources, limits, validation points and traceability.

Transfer challenge: one governed mission

Move the package to another team workflow without inheriting permissions or assumptions from the previous pilot.

  • Assign an owner and reviewer for the new workflow.
  • Revalidate sources, permissions, dependencies and the approval point.
  • Record the adopt, adjust or retire verdict.
Evidence
Versioned mission brief, permission matrix, approved plan, execution log and team verdict.
Review
Review after one authorized case and before expanding to another team or system.
Closing rubric

Closing rubric

1

Incomplete

The team has not yet assigned an owner, reviewer, permissions, sources or enough evidence to authorize the case.

2

Controlled

Owner and reviewer run a bounded case and retain evidence, but the team must correct one condition before repeating it.

3

Transferable

Another team can review and adapt the mission, permissions, exceptions and verdict without widening approved authority.

Next step

Playbook

Continue with the next resource in the journey.

Open Playbook
Workbook → Playbook