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 doing to orchestrating

Delegate a process without giving up your judgment.

Giving an AI a vague goal can accelerate the wrong outcome. Useful autonomy begins by stating what it may decide, what it must escalate and how success is checked.

What you will produce

You finish with a mission brief, permission matrix, approved plan and the record of one small, reversible run.

How to proceed

Choose a case, design the contract, limit tools, approve the plan, observe execution and decide whether to keep, adjust or stop.

What to verify

Keep the brief, approved plan, exceptions, sources used, result and final decision.

Design my pilot

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

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

Personal pilot, visible control

Complete the workbook with an individual mission that has no external effect. Every step leaves a decision and evidence you can review. In this pilot, any execution happens outside the workbook and requires separate authorization.

Workbook cycle: prepare, practise in class and consolidate.
Use case
Organize private notes into a weekly draft without sending or publishing it.
You are ready when
You have a repeatable case, its sources and time to review every output.

Inputs

  • Three repeatable personal tasks
  • Authorized private sources
  • A testable result
  • A stop condition
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

Design a bounded first agentic workflow: clear objective, minimum permissions, plan approval and evidence before expanding autonomy.

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

  • You have a repeatable case, its sources and time to review every output.
02

Inputs

  • Three repeatable personal tasks
  • Authorized private sources
  • A testable result
  • A stop condition
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.
  • Write the boundary you do not delegate.

Quality criteria

  • The case is repeatable and observable.
  • Your decision boundary is explicit.
Produces
Suitability matrix with verdict
Example
Synthetic example: prepare a weekly draft from private notes.
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.
  • State who retains your final approval.

Quality criteria

  • One human decision is unambiguous.
  • Final approval remains with you.
Produces
Accountability and result card
Example
Synthetic example: you accept or reject the draft before using it.
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.
  • Mark the permission you can revoke.

Quality criteria

  • Every action has explicit permission.
  • You can withdraw every granted permission.
Produces
Permission and escalation matrix
Example
Synthetic example: may read chosen notes and draft; may not send or delete.
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.
  • Bound the Mission Brief to one output.

Quality criteria

  • The brief makes the output testable.
  • The output has a Definition of Done.
Produces
Versioned mission brief
Example
Synthetic example: produce a cited weekly draft from authorized notes.
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.
  • Reject one step outside your contract.

Quality criteria

  • Every step fits the brief.
  • Every step respects your contract.
Produces
Approved, corrected or rejected plan
Example
Synthetic example: approve reading and drafting; reject publishing.
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.
  • Keep the controlled-run record.

Quality criteria

  • The log connects input, decision and result.
  • The run leaves a reviewable record.
Produces
Execution and exception log
Example
Synthetic example: keep notes, draft and your verdict; do not send it.
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.
  • Issue your verdict with evidence.

Quality criteria

  • Every verdict points to evidence.
  • Your verdict cites case evidence.
Produces
Compliance and deviation table
Example
Synthetic example: the draft cites every note but mixes two dates; adjust.
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.
  • Choose one correction under your control.

Quality criteria

  • The decision relies on pilot evidence.
  • The correction fits the next test.
Produces
Continuity decision
Example
Synthetic example: adjust the brief and repeat at the same scope.
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.
  • Test the package without expanding scope.

Quality criteria

  • Reused rules and new assumptions are distinct.
  • The new case keeps your boundaries.
Produces
Governed transfer package
Example
Synthetic example: reuse the format for another folder after reviewing sources again.
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.

Design a bounded first agentic workflow: clear objective, minimum permissions, plan approval and evidence before expanding autonomy.

Transfer challenge: one mission, one decision

Apply the package to a new case and hold scope until its own evidence supports a decision.

  • State what stays and what changes.
  • Revalidate sources, permissions and plan.
  • Close with keep, adjust or stop.
Evidence
Versioned brief, approved plan, case log and verdict.
Review
Review after one complete case; do not widen scope by calendar.
Closing rubric

Closing rubric

1

Incomplete

Owner, sources, limits, gate or evidence are missing.

2

Controlled

The case is bounded and evidenced but needs one correction before repetition.

3

Transferable

Contract, execution, exceptions and verdict can be reviewed and adapted without widening authority.

Next step

Playbook

Continue with the next resource in the journey.

Open Playbook
Workbook → Playbook