escalation-governance

name	escalation-governance
description	NEVER escalate without investigation first. This is the Iron Law. Use when evaluating whether to escalate models, facing genuine complexity requiring deeper reasoning, novel patterns with no existing solutions, high-stakes decisions requiring capability investment. Do not use when thrashing without investigation - investigate root cause first. DO NOT use when: time pressure alone - urgency doesn't change task complexity. DO NOT use when: "just to be safe" - assess actual complexity instead.
category	agent-workflow
tags	["escalation","model-selection","governance","agents","orchestration"]
dependencies	[]
estimated_tokens	800

Table of Contents

• Overview
• The Iron Law
• When to Escalate
• When NOT to Escalate
• Decision Framework
• 1. Have I understood the problem?
• 2. Have I investigated systematically?
• 3. Is escalation the right solution?
• 4. Can I justify the trade-off?
• Escalation Protocol
• Common Rationalizations
• Agent Schema
• Orchestrator Authority
• Red Flags - STOP and Investigate
• Integration with Agent Workflow
• Quick Reference

Escalation Governance

Overview

Model escalation (haiku→sonnet→opus) trades speed/cost for reasoning capability. This trade-off must be justified.

Core principle: Escalation is for tasks that genuinely require deeper reasoning, not for "maybe a smarter model will figure it out."

The Iron Law

NO ESCALATION WITHOUT INVESTIGATION FIRST

Verification: Run the command with --help flag to verify availability.

Escalation is never a shortcut. If you haven't understood why the current model is insufficient, escalation is premature.

When to Escalate

Legitimate escalation triggers:

Trigger	Description	Example
Genuine complexity	Task inherently requires nuanced judgment	Security policy trade-offs
Reasoning depth	Multiple inference steps with uncertainty	Architecture decisions
Novel patterns	No existing patterns apply	First-of-kind implementation
High stakes	Error cost justifies capability investment	Production deployment
Ambiguity resolution	Multiple valid interpretations need weighing	Spec clarification

When NOT to Escalate

Illegitimate escalation triggers:

Anti-Pattern	Why It's Wrong	What to Do Instead
"Maybe smarter model will figure it out"	This is thrashing	Investigate root cause
Multiple failed attempts	Suggests wrong approach, not insufficient capability	Question your assumptions
Time pressure	Urgency doesn't change task complexity	Systematic investigation is faster
Uncertainty without investigation	You haven't tried to understand yet	Gather evidence first
"Just to be safe"	False safety - wastes resources	Assess actual complexity

Decision Framework

Before escalating, answer these questions:

1. Have I understood the problem?

• Can I articulate why the current model is insufficient?
• Have I identified what specific reasoning capability is missing?
• Is this a capability gap or a knowledge gap?

If knowledge gap: Gather more information, don't escalate.

2. Have I investigated systematically?

• Did I read error messages/outputs carefully?
• Did I check for similar solved problems?
• Did I form and test a hypothesis?

If not investigated: Complete investigation first.

3. Is escalation the right solution?

• Would a different approach work at current model level?
• Is the task inherently complex, or am I making it complex?
• Would breaking the task into smaller pieces help?

If decomposable: Break down, don't escalate.

4. Can I justify the trade-off?

• What's the cost (latency, tokens, money) of escalation?
• What's the benefit (accuracy, safety, completeness)?
• Is the benefit proportional to the cost?

If not proportional: Don't escalate.

Escalation Protocol

When escalation IS justified:

1. Document the reason - State why current model is insufficient
2. Specify the scope - What specific subtask needs higher capability?
3. Define success - How will you know the escalated task succeeded?
4. Return promptly - Drop back to efficient model after reasoning task

Common Rationalizations

Excuse	Reality
"This is complex"	Complex for whom? Have you tried?
"Better safe than sorry"	Safety theater wastes resources
"I tried and failed"	How many times? Did you investigate why?
"The user expects quality"	Quality comes from process, not model size
"Just this once"	Exceptions become habits
"Time is money"	Systematic approach is faster than thrashing

Agent Schema

Agents can declare escalation hints in frontmatter:

model: haiku
escalation:
  to: sonnet                 # Suggested escalation target
  hints:                     # Advisory triggers (orchestrator may override)
    - security_sensitive     # Touches auth, secrets, permissions
    - ambiguous_input        # Multiple valid interpretations
    - novel_pattern          # No existing patterns apply
    - high_stakes            # Error would be costly

Verification: Run the command with --help flag to verify availability.

Key points:

• Hints are advisory, not mandatory
• Orchestrator has final authority
• Orchestrator can escalate without hints (broader context)
• Orchestrator can ignore hints (task is actually simple)

Orchestrator Authority

The orchestrator (typically Opus) makes final escalation decisions:

Can follow hints: When hint matches observed conditions Can override to escalate: When context demands it (even without hints) Can override to stay: When task is simpler than hints suggest Can escalate beyond hint: Go to opus even if hint says sonnet

The orchestrator's judgment, informed by conversation context, supersedes static hints.

Red Flags - STOP and Investigate

If you catch yourself thinking:

• "Let me try with a better model"
• "This should be simple but isn't working"
• "I've tried everything" (but haven't investigated why)
• "The smarter model will know what to do"
• "I don't understand why this isn't working"

ALL of these mean: STOP. Investigate first.

Integration with Agent Workflow

**Verification:** Run the command with `--help` flag to verify availability.
Agent starts task at assigned model
├── Task succeeds → Complete
└── Task struggles →
    ├── Investigate systematically
    │   ├── Root cause found → Fix at current model
    │   └── Genuine capability gap → Escalate with justification
    └── Don't investigate → WRONG PATH
        └── "Maybe escalate?" → NO. Investigate first.

Verification: Run the command with --help flag to verify availability.

Quick Reference

Situation	Action
Task inherently requires nuanced reasoning	Escalate
Agent uncertain but hasn't investigated	Investigate first
Multiple attempts failed	Question approach, not model
Security/high-stakes decision	Escalate
"Maybe smarter model knows"	Never escalate on this basis
Hint fires, task is actually simple	Override, stay at current model
No hint fires, task is actually complex	Override, escalate

Model Capability Notes

MCP Tool Search (Claude Code 2.1.7+): Haiku models do not support MCP tool search. If a workflow uses many MCP tools (descriptions exceeding 10% of context), those tools load upfront on haiku instead of being deferred. This can consume significant context. Consider escalating to sonnet for MCP-heavy workflows or ensure haiku agents use only native tools (Read, Write, Bash, etc.).

Claude.ai MCP Connectors (Claude Code 2.1.46+): Users with claude.ai connectors configured may have additional MCP tools auto-loaded, increasing the total tool description footprint. This makes it more likely that haiku agents will exceed the 10% tool search threshold. When escalation decisions involve MCP-heavy workflows, factor in claude.ai connector tool count via /mcp.

Effort Controls as Escalation Alternative (Opus 4.6 / Claude Code 2.1.32+): Opus 4.6 introduces adaptive thinking with effort levels (low, medium, high, max). Before escalating between models, consider whether adjusting effort level on the current model would suffice:

Instead of...	Consider...	When
Haiku → Sonnet	Stay on Haiku	Task is still deterministic, just needs more context
Sonnet → Opus	Opus@medium	Moderate reasoning, not deep architectural analysis
Opus@medium → "maybe try again"	Opus@high or "ultrathink"	Genuine complexity needing deeper reasoning

Default effort change (2.1.68+): Opus 4.6 now defaults to medium effort for Max and Team subscribers. Use /model to change effort level, or type "ultrathink" in your prompt to enable high effort for the next turn.

Opus 4/4.1 removed (2.1.68+): Opus 4 and 4.1 are no longer available on the first-party API. Users with these models pinned are automatically migrated to Opus 4.6. No action needed for agents using model frontmatter, as the migration is transparent.

Sonnet 4.5 → 4.6 migration (2.1.69+): Sonnet 4.5 users on Pro/Max/Team Premium are automatically migrated to Sonnet 4.6. Agent model frontmatter referencing Sonnet resolves transparently. The --model flags for claude-opus-4-0 and claude-opus-4-1 now correctly resolve to Opus 4.6 instead of deprecated versions.

Effort parameter fix (2.1.70+): Fixed API 400 error This model does not support the effort parameter when using custom Bedrock inference profiles or non-standard Claude model identifiers. Effort controls now work reliably across all deployment configurations.

Effort controls do NOT replace the escalation governance framework: they provide an additional axis. The Iron Law still applies: investigate before changing either model or effort level.

Troubleshooting

Common Issues

Command not found Ensure all dependencies are installed and in PATH

Permission errors Check file permissions and run with appropriate privileges

Unexpected behavior Enable verbose logging with --verbose flag