Role Assignment
Give each agent a named role with a role-specific prompt, tool palette, and acceptance criteria — outputs are attributable, specialisation improves quality, and generic drift stops.
Intent & Description
🎯 Intent
Assign each agent a named role (researcher, writer, critic, planner) with a role-specific prompt, tool palette, and acceptance criteria.
📋 Context
Several agents contribute to a shared workflow — a content pipeline with a researcher, writer, and critic; a coding crew with a planner, coder, and reviewer. The user, the reviewer, and the team need to know who produced what. Each role has its own work to do and its own definition of done.
💡 Solution
Define each role with a system prompt naming its responsibility and constraints, a tool palette scoped to its role, and acceptance criteria for outputs it produces. The workflow assigns tasks to roles; outputs are evaluated against the role’s acceptance criteria.
Real-world Use Case
- Multiple agents collaborate and attribution matters — who produced what.
- Different parts of the workflow have distinct responsibilities, tools, and acceptance criteria.
- Generic agents have been observed drifting toward similarity or duplicating effort.
Source
📌 TL;DR
Named role + scoped prompt + dedicated tools + acceptance criteria — attribution is clear, specialisation beats generic, and drift has a definition to measure against.
Advantages
- Outputs are attributable and reviewable per role.
- Specialisation improves quality on each role’s specific task.
Disadvantages
- Bureaucratic overhead — more prompts, more policies, more things to maintain.
- Role drift over long sessions as agents gradually exceed their defined scope.