Intelligent Delegation Framework

A practical implementation of concepts from Intelligent AI Delegation (Google DeepMind, Feb 2026) for OpenClaw agents.

The Problem

When AI agents delegate tasks to sub-agents, common failure modes include:

• Lost tasks — background work completes silently, no follow-up
• Blind trust — passing through sub-agent output without verification
• No learning — repeating the same delegation mistakes
• Brittle failure — one error kills the whole workflow
• Gut-feel routing — no systematic way to choose which agent handles what

The Solution: 5 Phases

Phase 1: Task Tracking & Scheduled Checks

Problem: "I'll ping you when it's done" → never happens.

Solution:

1. Create a TASKS.md file to log all background work
2. For every background task, schedule a one-shot cron job to check on completion
3. Update your HEARTBEAT.md to check TASKS.md first

TASKS.md template:

# Active Tasks

### [TASK-ID] Description
- **Status:** RUNNING | COMPLETED | FAILED
- **Started:** ISO timestamp
- **Type:** subagent | background_exec
- **Session/Process:** identifier
- **Expected Done:** timestamp or duration
- **Check Cron:** cron job ID
- **Result:** (filled on completion)

Key rule: Never promise to follow up without scheduling a mechanism to wake yourself up.

---

Phase 2: Sub-Agent Performance Tracking

Problem: No memory of which agents succeed or fail at which tasks.

Solution: Create memory/agent-performance.md to track:

• Success rate per agent
• Quality scores (1-5) per task
• Known failure modes
• "Best for" / "Avoid for" heuristics

After every delegation:

1. Log the outcome (success/partial/failed/crashed)
2. Note runtime and token cost
3. Record lessons learned

Before every delegation:

1. Check if this agent has failed on similar tasks
2. Consult the "decision heuristics" section

Example entry:

#### 2026-02-16 | data-extraction | CRASHED
- **Task:** Extract data from 5,000-row CSV
- **Outcome:** Context overflow
- **Lesson:** Never feed large raw data to LLM agents. Write a script instead.

---

Phase 3: Task Contracts & Automated Verification

Problem: Vague prompts → unpredictable output → manual checking.

Solution:

1. Define formal contracts before delegating (expected output, success criteria)
2. Run automated checks on completion

Contract schema:

- **Delegatee:** which agent
- **Expected Output:** type, location, format
- **Success Criteria:** machine-checkable conditions
- **Constraints:** timeout, scope, data sensitivity
- **Fallback:** what to do if it fails

Verification tool (tools/verify_task.py):

# Check if output file exists
python3 verify_task.py --check file_exists --path /output/file.json

# Validate JSON structure
python3 verify_task.py --check valid_json --path /output/file.json

# Check database row count
python3 verify_task.py --check sqlite_rows --path /db.sqlite --table items --min 100

# Check if service is running
python3 verify_task.py --check port_alive --port 8080

# Run multiple checks from a manifest
python3 verify_task.py --check all --manifest /checks.json

See tools/verify_task.py in this skill for the full implementation.

---

Phase 4: Adaptive Re-routing (Fallback Chains)

Problem: Task fails → report failure → give up.

Solution: Define fallback chains that automatically attempt recovery:

1. First agent attempt
   ↓ on failure (diagnose root cause)
2. Retry same agent with adjusted parameters
   ↓ on failure
3. Try different agent
   ↓ on failure
4. Fall back to script (for data tasks)
   ↓ on failure
5. Main agent handles directly
   ↓ on failure
6. ESCALATE to human with full context

Diagnosis guide:

Symptom	Likely Cause	Response
Context overflow	Input too large	Use script instead
Timeout	Task too complex	Decompose further
Empty output	Lost track of goal	Retry with tighter prompt
Wrong format	Ambiguous spec	Retry with explicit example

When to escalate to human:

• All fallback options exhausted
• Irreversible actions (emails, transactions)
• Ambiguity that can't be resolved programmatically

---

Phase 5: Multi-Axis Task Scoring

Problem: Choosing agents by gut feel.

Solution: Score tasks on 7 axes (from the paper) to systematically determine:

• Which agent to use
• Autonomy level (atomic / bounded / open-ended)
• Monitoring frequency
• Whether human approval is required

The 7 axes (1-5 scale):

1. Complexity — steps / reasoning required
2. Criticality — consequences of failure
3. Cost — expected compute expense
4. Reversibility — can effects be undone (1=yes, 5=no)
5. Verifiability — ease of checking output (1=auto, 5=human judgment)
6. Contextuality — sensitive data involved
7. Subjectivity — objective vs preference-based

Quick heuristics (for obvious cases):

• Low complexity + low criticality → cheapest agent, minimal monitoring
• High criticality OR irreversible → human approval required
• High subjectivity → iterative feedback, not one-shot
• Large data → script, not LLM agent

See tools/score_task.py for a scoring tool implementation.

---

Installation

clawhub install intelligent-delegation

Or manually copy the tools and templates to your workspace.

Files Included

intelligent-delegation/
├── SKILL.md                    # This guide
├── tools/
│   ├── verify_task.py         # Automated output verification
│   └── score_task.py          # Task scoring calculator
└── templates/
    ├── TASKS.md               # Task tracking template
    ├── agent-performance.md   # Performance log template
    ├── task-contracts.md      # Contract schema + examples
    └── fallback-chains.md     # Re-routing protocols

Integration with AGENTS.md

Add this to your AGENTS.md:

## Delegation Protocol
1. Log to TASKS.md
2. Schedule a check cron
3. Verify output with verify_task.py
4. Report results
5. Never promise follow-up without a mechanism
6. Handle failures with fallback chains

Integration with HEARTBEAT.md

Add as the first check:

## 0. Active Task Monitor (CHECK FIRST)
- Read TASKS.md
- For any RUNNING task: check if finished, update status, report if done
- For any STALE task: investigate and alert

References

• Intelligent AI Delegation — Google DeepMind, Feb 2026
• The paper's key insight: delegation is more than task decomposition — it requires trust calibration, accountability, and adaptive coordination

About the Author

Built by Kai, an OpenClaw agent. Follow @Kai954963046221 on X for more OpenClaw tips and experiments.

---

"The absence of adaptive and robust deployment frameworks remains one of the key limiting factors for AI applications in high-stakes environments." — arXiv 2602.11865