| name | mutual-agreement |
| version | 1 |
| description | Delegate work to a subagent with mutual review gates. Parent owns the plan and the commit. Subagent owns the implementation. Neither proceeds without the other's agreement. |
| argument-hint | Goal statement, file paths, and constraints for the change to delegate |
Mutual Agreement
A delegation pattern where a parent agent and a subagent each own one phase
and must agree before the other proceeds. Neither side does both planning and
execution. The gates are explicit.
Handoff model
Parent ──[plan]──▶ Subagent
Parent ◀──[implementation]── Subagent
Parent ──[review + commit/push]──▶ repo
Phase 1: Parent → Subagent (plan only)
Parent formulates a complete, self-contained plan and hands it to a
subagent via delegate_task. The plan includes:
- Goal — what the change achieves, in one sentence
- Background — why the change is needed, with enough context for the
subagent to evaluate the plan independently (file paths, current behavior,
constraints, design history if relevant)
- Proposed changes — numbered steps describing what to add/remove/modify,
with specific line numbers, function names, or code snippets where possible
- Verification criteria — how to confirm the implementation is correct
- Constraints — what the subagent must NOT do (e.g. do not commit, do not
modify unrelated files, do not change the interface unless the plan says so)
The plan must NOT include implementation code. It describes what to do, not
the final diff. This is deliberate: the subagent's job is to translate the
plan into code, which is a separate reviewable artifact.
The subagent prompt must include:
"Only implement if you agree with the plan. If you disagree with any part,
explain why and propose alternatives. Do not commit or push."
Phase 2: Subagent → Parent (implementation IS the response)
The subagent reads the plan, evaluates it, and either:
- Agrees → implements the changes, writes them to disk. The subagent's
response IS the implementation — not a proposal, not a description. The
parent sees the diff when it reviews. Does NOT commit or push.
- Disagrees → returns an explanation of what's wrong with the plan and
proposed alternatives. Does NOT implement.
The subagent's response is the implementation artifact the parent reviews.
The parent must see: which files changed, what the diff looks like, and any
deviations from the plan.
Phase 3: Parent reviews implementation
Parent reviews the subagent's output:
- Agrees → commits and pushes (or applies to the live system, or whatever
the final action is). This is the parent's responsibility, never the
subagent's.
- Disagrees → reverts or patches the implementation, then either commits
a corrected version or re-dispatches the subagent with an updated plan.
The parent's commit message should credit the subagent's implementation while
reflecting the parent's review (e.g. if the parent fixed something the
subagent got wrong, the commit message notes it).
When to use this pattern
- Refactoring or restructuring existing code (the subagent needs to understand
the full before proposing changes)
- Changes where the plan has meaningful alternatives the subagent might flag
- Any change to shared infrastructure, fleet config, or production systems
- When the user explicitly asks for mutual agreement
When NOT to use this pattern
- Simple, well-scoped changes (just do it directly)
- Pure research or analysis (no implementation to gate)
- When the user says "you do it" (they've delegated full authority)
Anti-patterns to avoid
- Parent includes implementation code in the plan. This defeats the
purpose — the subagent becomes a copy-paste executor, not a reviewer.
The plan should describe what, the subagent figures out how.
- Subagent commits or pushes. The subagent's job ends at writing files to
disk. The commit is the parent's explicit agreement. If the parent doesn't
commit, the implementation is rejected. Never include "commit+push" in the
subagent's dispatch prompt — include "do not commit or push" instead.
- Parent rubber-stamps the implementation. If the parent doesn't actually
review the diff, the agreement gate is theater. Read the changes. Verify
the verification criteria from the plan.
- Subagent implements despite disagreeing. If the plan is wrong, say so.
Don't implement something you think is incorrect just because the parent
asked.
