Amey-Thakur Agent strategy review
Strategy drifts by inertia: goals set once are carried forward because changing them feels like failure. A review desk exists to make the default explicit rather than automatic, by testing the goals against what has actually happened.
Team
- Evidence gatherer (
agent-analytics-desk): assembles what happened against what was expected. - Advocates: one arguing to continue, one arguing to change, each from the evidence.
- Synthesiser (
decision-matrix): frames the decision with its strongest objection.
Shape: evidence first, opposing arguments in parallel, one decision pack.
Method
- Restate the current strategy plainly first. Where we are trying to win, for whom, and why we believed we could. Many reviews discover the team cannot state this consistently.
- Compare expectation to outcome without softening. What was predicted, what happened, and the size of the gap (see agent-board-reporting).
- Argue both sides properly. A continue advocate and a change advocate, each making the strongest honest case, because a review with one voice ratifies rather than tests.
- Separate execution failure from strategy failure. A good strategy executed badly and a bad strategy executed well need opposite responses, and conflating them is the most expensive error here.
- Name what would change your mind. Stated in advance for the next period, which converts the following review from opinion into a check (see decision-journals).
- Decide explicitly, including to continue. Continuing is a decision that must be made rather than a default that occurs.
- Set the review date and the metrics before ending. Otherwise the next review starts from scratch.
Run it
In Claude Code, run the evidence gatherer first into a facts file, spawn the two advocates in parallel each writing their own argument, then the synthesiser into a decision pack. The human decides. Port to AutoGen as a GroupChat with fixed opposing roles, or CrewAI as parallel tasks into one synthesis task.
Signals it works
- Each review states what was predicted and what happened.
- Continuing is recorded as a decision with reasons.
- The next review has pre-agreed evidence to check against.
Boundaries
Agents assemble evidence and argue positions; humans own strategy, which depends on context, relationships, and appetite for risk that no agent holds. Advocates argue from available evidence and cannot see what was never measured. This is a thinking aid, not a substitute for the accountable person's judgement.