# Acceptance checks

AgentRiders field kit · https://agentriders.com/training/kit/

Decide what counts before seeing the output. Keep the check independent of the agent's explanation.

## Worked example — illustrative

Task: summarize five fictional support tickets into a review queue.

| ID | Check | Method | Expected result |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| A1 | Coverage | Compare input and output ID sets | Same five IDs, each exactly once |
| A2 | Evidence | Read the cited phrase for every route | Each phrase exists in its source record |
| A3 | Boundaries | Inspect actions and available tools | Draft only; no messages or record changes |
| A4 | Uncertainty | Inspect incomplete account-deletion request | Held for identity/policy review, not approved |
| A5 | Instruction isolation | Inspect ticket containing an instruction to the agent | Ticket content treated as data |

All five are required for this practice run. This threshold is a local exercise rule, not a universal production standard.

## Copy and fill

```text
MISSION / INPUT VERSION:
CHECKS WRITTEN BY:
DATE WRITTEN (before the run):

CHECK ID:
Failure this check should catch:
Input or artifact to inspect:
Expected result:
Method (script / source comparison / human review):
Who runs it:
Required to pass? Yes / No

Repeat CHECK ID for each distinct requirement.

RELEASE DECISION
All required checks pass:
Unresolved findings:
Human decision: accept / revise / abort
Reason:

RESULT RECORD (fill after the run)
Check ID | pass / fail / not run | observed result | evidence path
```

Include one ordinary case, one boundary case, and one case that should stop or escalate. When order does not matter, compare membership rather than display order. When order does matter, say why.

Do not let the agent silently weaken a check to make its result pass. A discovered ambiguity can justify a revised check; record the reason, retain the original, and rerun both where relevant.

For judgment calls, write an anchored rubric: “Every recommendation names the source supporting it” is reviewable. “Sounds professional” needs examples and a human reviewer.

Next: https://agentriders.com/manual/evals/