Write the problem hypothesis
For [owner], the agent takes or proposes [action] without enough [visibility, approval or control], creating [risk].
You can name one user, one situation and one measurable consequence without proposing a feature.Harden the tag-driven workflow for stable and preview releases
Evidence observed in openonion/connectonion, a Agent Infrastructure project.
18 comments0 positive reactions40 days openProject Radar 88
enhancementplatform
Start free validation sprint4 guided steps · private notes · cloud sync
SOURCE EVIDENCE
Read original GitHub Issue ↗Start with what users actually said
Read the complete discussion before interpreting the problem. Note repeated use cases, workarounds, constraints and the people asking for the change.
Interview five affected users
- Which action needs oversight?
- When should a human intervene?
- What evidence is needed to approve it?
- How is an action reversed?
- Who is accountable when it fails?
Run the smallest experiment
Insert one approval, audit or pause point into a live workflow and measure delay versus prevented risk.
Owners can explain, approve and reverse the action without blocking low-risk work.Make a build decision
- Build: repeated pain and active commitment
- Narrow: pain is real but the audience or job differs
- Stop: weak frequency or no behavioral proof
Why this brief exists
Information has value only when it changes action. This page turns one public signal into a bounded validation exercise. It is a research aid, not proof of demand, investment advice or a product recommendation.