Place approval where the agent is about to make a consequential choice or external change. The reviewer needs the actual target and prepared result to make an informed decision.
Anthropic’s agent design guidance discusses environment feedback, human checkpoints and stopping conditions. These checkpoints can be used to define what a person reviews and when the workflow pauses.
An email provides a useful example of where review fits. With the recipient, subject, message and attachments visible together, the person approving it can assess the complete communication. Preparing those details first makes approval a specific decision about something ready to send.
Inventory what the agent can do
Separate reading information, preparing a proposed result, changing local state and acting in an external system. Identify which operations are reversible and what another person or system would observe after execution.
Use the user’s actual authorisation and the application’s controls. Keep the scope of each approval clear, and carry it forward for actions it already covers. A materially different action may need a new decision.
Make the review concrete
| Review item | What the person needs |
|---|---|
| Target | Exact destination, record, recipient or system |
| Proposed result | The prepared change or content |
| Scope | What the action includes |
| Consequences | What will occur once executed |
| Evidence | Relevant checks and unresolved questions |
For a fictional publishing task, prepare the actual page and its checks before requesting publication approval. A person can assess that result more meaningfully than an intention to write it later.
Record what happened
Keep preparation, approval and execution distinguishable in the record. Record preparation, human approval and execution as separate stages so the action’s current status is clear. If circumstances change materially after approval, reassess whether the permission still covers the final operation.
Prepare an approval card for one action
For a fictional outgoing email, the review could contain:
| Field | Prepared detail |
|---|---|
| Action | Send the attached message |
| Recipient | Named address selected for this task |
| Content | Complete subject and body |
| Attachment | Exact file and version |
| Scope | This message to this recipient |
| Status | Ready for review |
The reviewer can now inspect the communication as a whole. If they request an edit, the prepared version is updated before execution. If they approve, the execution record can identify which version was sent.
Decide what changes reopen review
Agree which differences are material for the workflow. A new recipient, a changed payment amount or a replacement file can change the action being authorised. Keep the approval attached to the prepared details so those differences are visible.
Preparation can usually continue through reversible work such as drafting or gathering information within the authorised task. The checkpoint belongs where the relevant external action or consequential choice needs a decision. This helps the user review a concrete result while allowing the assistant to complete the work needed to make it reviewable.
After execution, record the actual outcome, including any failure or partial completion. A retry should be assessed against that state so an action already completed is accounted for.
A material change can reopen that decision. Adding a recipient, changing the attachment or revising the amount in a payment request gives the reviewer something new to consider. Keeping the approved version with the action record provides a clear reference for everyone involved.
Sources consulted
- Building effective agents — Anthropic; consulted 3 November 2026.