Main Agent Supervisor

Supervise a main agent so it defaults to execution, suppresses obvious permission loops, and escalates to the user only for true approvals or critical ambiguity. Use when designing, running, or auditing a reviewer/gatekeeper/coaching layer for agent replies, approval policy, escalation logic, anti-stuck behavior, or supervisor-style chat/output filtering.

This skill is for a supervisor layer over a main agent, not a generic task tracker.

Goal

Prevent the main agent from getting stuck on obvious decisions while still preserving real human control for risky or ambiguous actions.

Core design

Use a four-part model:

1. Classifier

   • Decide whether a pending ask/action is:
     • AUTO
     • CONFIRM
     • ESCALATE

2. Pre-send gate

   • Before the main agent sends a user-visible reply, ask:
     • Is this asking for an obvious decision?
     • Is there a safe default?
     • Is the agent permission-looping?
   • If yes, suppress the question and continue execution.

3. Triage / watchdog

   • Borrowing from claude-code-supervisor, classify agent state into:
     • FINE
     • NEEDS_NUDGE
     • STUCK
     • DONE
     • ESCALATE
   • Use a lightweight pre-filter for obvious cases before invoking heavier review.

4. Task-state tracking for large tasks

   • Borrowing from task-supervisor, keep simple checkpoint files for long tasks.
   • Track:
     • started time
     • status
     • completed steps
     • last updated
     • current blocker / next step

Use this policy

AUTO

Proceed without bothering the user when all are true:

• internal / local action
• reversible or low-risk
• no external send/publish
• no payment / secret / production change
• user intent is already clear
• there is one reasonable default

CONFIRM

Ask the user when any are true:

• external send/publish
• destructive / irreversible action
• money / orders / account changes
• production/live-system changes
• privacy / compliance / legal sensitivity

ESCALATE

Ask only when blocked after reasonable retries or when multiple materially different paths exist.

Reply-shaping rules

When the main agent drafts a question, rewrite it if:

• it is merely asking permission for an AUTO action
• it asks for a trivial preference that has a safe default
• it proposes extra scope that is obviously worth trying and reversible

Preferred rewrite:

• state the chosen default
• continue execution
• mention assumptions briefly if needed

For larger tasks, pair this with a task-state file instead of ad-hoc check-in messages. That preserves progress visibility without interrupting the user for obvious decisions.

Best current pattern

For this workspace, the best practical setup is:

• escalation classifier as the core policy
• pre-send gate as enforcement
• triage/watchdog for stuck detection
• task-state files for large tasks
• passive reviewer/audit log for tuning

References

Read these when needed:

• references/design.md — recommended architecture and message flow
• references/comparison.md — what existing public skills cover vs what they miss
• references/implementation.md — workspace-specific OpenClaw implementation plan