Ownership & purpose
Name an owner. Define the problem, intended audience, permitted context and expected output. Make the prompt’s role in the workflow explicit.
GOVERNANCE FROM THE START
A prompt can influence a decision, a tool call or a proposed change. Manage that influence early, while the workflow is still small enough to understand.
Name an owner. Define the problem, intended audience, permitted context and expected output. Make the prompt’s role in the workflow explicit.
Record prompt changes in version control. Review the diff, the rationale and the associated tool permissions before releasing a new version.
Use representative examples, including missing data and failure cases. Check usefulness, unsupported claims and whether escalation boundaries are respected.
Record the approved prompt version alongside the model configuration and tool contract. Retain a known-good version and a way to pause the workflow.
Keep client, personal and work contexts scoped. Treat retrieved documents and task notes as input data, with provenance, rather than new authority.
Enforce scoped access, time and cost limits outside the prompt. Distinguish read, propose and execute. Make cancellation and human escalation practical.
A SMALL REGISTER, A BIG DIFFERENCE
A prompt register gives reviewers a common reference. It should travel with the workflow rather than disappear into an individual chat.
A prompt can describe a boundary. Tool services, identities and execution policy must enforce it. Add attribution, audit records and explicit approval for the actions that need it, then test those controls independently of the model.
WHY START EARLY?
As prompts, models and tools evolve, the same task may produce a different proposal. Early governance gives the team a way to understand those changes and decide which behaviour to release.
Capture the prompt’s purpose, the inputs it may use, the output a reviewer expects and the conditions that require escalation. Link that contract to the permitted tools and the person who owns the workflow.
For an investigation prompt, the contract might require a diagnosis with source references, a list of uncertainties and a proposed next check. Missing evidence should be visible in the result.
Try stale documentation, contradictory logs, incomplete task records and a requested action outside scope. Retrieved material can contain misleading instructions; it should remain evidence to assess, rather than authority to change the workflow.
Repeat the relevant checks when a prompt, model configuration or tool contract changes. Retain the reviewed version and its evaluation record so a release can be compared with what came before.
PRACTICAL GOVERNANCE QUESTIONS
The workflow owner can pre-authorise bounded, routine steps under an explicit policy. Decisions with wider consequences need a review point appropriate to their scope. Enforce the boundary in the tool or execution service and give people a practical way to pause work.
Start with a named owner, an approved prompt version, a short set of representative checks and a clear record of permitted actions. Add controls as the scope and consequences grow. The first pilot should already have a way to stop and a way to evaluate its result.
A second agent can challenge assumptions and check references, but may repeat the same mistake. Give the reviewer access to the underlying evidence and preserve disagreements. The workflow’s acceptance criteria and human decision points still apply.
LET’S FIND YOUR FIRST WORKFLOW