team-escalation
Skill9 starsChanged 2 months agoMITView on GitHub
Hands work up to a higher tier, or down to a lower one, with a structured packet so no context is lost. Use when a task exceeds the current agent's ceiling, when a brief is too vague to execute, when two agents disagree, or when decomposing work for someone else to do. Escalating correctly is a successful outcome, not a failure.
In this repository28 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- .github/copilot-instructions.mdCopilot instructions
- api-designSkill
- architecture-decisionSkill
- autonomous-relaySkill
- browser-verificationSkill
- code-review-passSkill
- data-analysisSkill
- data-modelingSkill
- data-pipelineSkill
- data-qualitySkill
- documentationSkill
- firmware-buildSkill
- frontend-buildSkill
- incident-responseSkill
- incremental-deliverySkill
- ml-lifecycleSkill
- performance-passSkill
- release-and-rollbackSkill
- requirements-interviewSkill
- security-hardeningSkill
- simplification-passSkill
- spec-writingSkill
- systematic-debuggingSkill
- tdd-loopSkill
- using-agent-dev-teamSkill
- work-breakdownSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
4 rules. About 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈3
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
1
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 37
Stop: Do not "finish the part you can" if that part bakes in the decision you are escalating.
- Very specific: line 79
Every field is required for a T0.
- Distinctive: line 88
If the packet is incomplete, ask for the missing field rather than guessing.
- Distinctive: line 92
If you are terminal (T3) you must produce a decision.
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Team Escalation
The ladder only works if the handoffs are structured. An escalation that is a shrug transfers the problem plus the loss of everything the first agent learned.
Full ceilings and trigger definitions: references/escalation-ladder.md.
When to escalate up
Any one of these fires, regardless of tier or confidence:
- Irreversibility — data deletion, a released API, a migration with no rollback, an outward-facing publish.
- Blast radius — the change can break something you have not read.
- Security surface — authentication, authorization, secrets, cryptography, or input crossing a trust boundary.
- Unknown-unknowns — two or more unresolved unknowns after one honest investigation pass. One unknown is research; two means you are at the wrong altitude.
- Contract change — a caller outside your change set would have to be edited.
- Cost — the work is materially larger than the brief implied.
- Incomplete brief — for a T0, any missing brief field is an immediate escalation.
Confidence is not a counter-trigger.
Escalating up
- Stop. Do not "finish the part you can" if that part bakes in the decision you are escalating. Leave the tree in a state the next agent can read.
- Reduce it to one question. Two questions means the work was not decomposed. Split the handoff or ask the more blocking one.
- Gather evidence. The decisive quoted line, not the log.
- Emit the packet. Verbatim, so the receiver can parse it.
## HANDOFF
- **From:** <agent-name> (T<n>)
- **To:** <agent-name> (T<n>)
- **Trigger:** irreversibility | blast-radius | security-surface | unknown-unknowns | contract-change | cost | incomplete-brief
- **Task as given:** <one sentence>
- **Done so far:** <committed or in the working tree; "nothing" is valid>
- **Files touched:** <path:line list, or "none">
- **Blocking question:** <one decision, answerable yes/no or A/B>
- **Options considered:** <A / B, and which you would pick and why>
- **Reversibility:** reversible | reversible-with-effort | irreversible
- **Evidence:** <quoted output>- Route. One tier up, unless the trigger names a specialist: security surface goes to
security-auditor, a measured regression toperformance-engineer, a release concern tosre. Do not skip tiers to save time; the skipped tier is usually the one that would have solved it cheaply.
Delegating down
Work handed down without a complete brief comes back wrong, and that is the delegator's defect.
## BRIEF
- **To:** <agent-name> (T<n>)
- **Goal:** <one sentence, in observable behavior>
- **Files in scope:** <explicit paths>
- **Pattern to follow:** <path:line of code to copy the shape of>
- **Definition of done:** <the exact command that must pass>
- **Out of scope:** <what to leave alone even if it looks wrong>
- **Stop condition:** <what makes you stop and escalate>Every field is required for a T0. Pattern to follow may be omitted at T1 and above when
the pattern is obvious from surrounding code.
Delegated work returns with evidence. The delegator checks the evidence, not the summary.
Receiving an escalation
- Answer the blocking question first, before re-doing the work. The sender needs a decision, not a rescue.
- If the packet is incomplete, ask for the missing field rather than guessing. One round trip is cheaper than a wrong decision.
- Decide whether to answer and hand back down, or absorb the task. Prefer handing back: the sender has the context loaded.
- If you are terminal (T3) you must produce a decision. A referral is not an answer.
Verification
- The packet has every field, and the blocking question is exactly one question.
- "Done so far" is true, and no untested code is described as working.
- Evidence is quoted output, not a characterisation of output.
- The route is one tier up or a named specialist, not a skip to the top.
Red flags
| Thought | Reality |
| "I'll finish what I can first" | Not if it bakes in the decision you are escalating. |
| "Escalating early looks bad" | Escalating early with a packet is the highest-value thing a low tier does. |
| "I'll just ask the human" | The human answers intent, cost, and risk. Technical questions go up the ladder. |
| "I'll escalate the whole task" | Escalate the decision. Handing up a shrug loses everything you learned. |
| "Two questions, but they are related" | Then answer the one that unblocks and re-ask the other after. |
| "I'll go straight to principal, it is complex" | The skipped tier is usually the one that solves it cheaply. |
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

