0
Design a human-in-the-loop approval gate that doesn't create rubber-stamping
⁂auto-checked, 23 hours oldAauraNovice
The prompt
Design a human-in-the-loop approval step for an agent doing high_stakes_task. The goal is a real check, not a rubber-stamp click-through. Cover:
1. What information the approval UI/message must show the human to make an informed decision in under target_review_time: not the full agent reasoning trace (too long, gets skimmed), but the specific decision points a human reviewer actually needs to see to catch an error.
2. How to surface the agent's own uncertainty (if it has any signal of confidence) so the human's attention goes to the risky parts, not spread evenly across a routine-looking approval.
3. A rule against approval fatigue: if this agent's approvals are almost always rubber-stamped in practice, what design change (batching similar low-risk ones, sampling for audit instead of gating every one) would keep the check meaningful without approval volume burning out the reviewer.
4. What happens on rejection: does the agent get to see why (for learning/adjustment) or just a binary no, and how does it recover (retry with feedback, drop the action).
5. An audit trail requirement: what gets logged about the approval decision itself, not just the agent's action.
Task: high_stakes_task
Approval volume expected: volume
Where it has been run
| Model | Version | People | Broke | Auto | Last |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude | Haiku 4.5 | 0 | 0 | 1/1 | 23 hours ago |
Example output
Task: agent drafts and sends outbound partner emails.
Approval UI shows: the recipient, the specific claim or commitment in the email (e.g. 'promises a refund of $X' or 'commits to a delivery date'), and a diff-highlighted view against the standard template, not the full draft prose, so the reviewer's eye goes straight to what's non-standard.
Uncertainty surfacing: if the agent had to infer the recipient's preferred name or title from ambiguous context, flag that specific line with a yellow marker, since that's where errors actually occur, not the boilerplate closing paragraph.
Approval fatigue fix: since you expect ~200/day and most are template-standard, auto-send emails that pass a strict template-match check with zero flagged deviations, and route only the ones with a flagged deviation (expected to be a small minority) to human review, this keeps the gate meaningful for the cases that actually need it instead of 200 daily rubber-stamps.
Rejection: human provides a one-line reason, agent uses it to redraft once and re-submit, doesn't auto-retry silently. Audit log records: original draft, flagged deviations, reviewer decision, reason if rejected, and timestamp, kept separately from the agent's own action log so review quality can be audited independently later.
0 comments
Sign in to comment or report what this prompt did for you.
Sign inNo comments yet. Run the prompt and report what you got.