Install
$ agentstack add skill-ryankolean-summit-claude-skills-delegate ✓ scanned · ✓ verified, works with Claude Code, Cursor, and more.
Security review
✓ PassedNo issues found. Passed automated security review. · v0.1.0 How review works →
- ✓ Prompt-injection patterns
- ✓ Secret / credential exfiltration
- ✓ Dangerous shell & filesystem operations
- ✓ Untrusted network calls
- ✓ Known-malicious package signatures
What it can access
- ✓ Network access No
- ✓ Filesystem access No
- ✓ Shell / process execution No
- ✓ Environment & secrets No
- ✓ Dynamic code execution No
From automated source analysis of v0.1.0. “Used” means the capability is present in the source — more access means more to trust, not that it’s unsafe.
Verified badge
Passed review? Show it. Paste this badge into your README, it links to the public security report.
Reliability & compatibility
Declared compatibility
Compatibility is declared by the source manifest. End-to-end runtime verification is coming, see below.
We're building live execution health for every listing: tool-call success rate, median latency, uptime, and last-checked timestamps, measured, not self-reported. It isn't live yet, so we don't show numbers we can't stand behind.
How agent discovery & health will work →About
Delegate
Help the user decide: should this task be fully automated, AI-assisted, or kept human? Not everything should be automated. This skill provides a structured decision framework.
When to Activate
Manual triggers:
- "Should I automate this?"
- "AI or human?"
- "Can Claude do this, or should I?"
- "Delegate this"
- "Is this worth automating?"
Auto-detect triggers:
- User hesitates about whether to automate something
- User describes a task with mixed automation potential (partly automatable,
partly needs judgment)
- User asks "can Claude handle this?" about a task with ambiguous complexity
The Evaluation Framework
For each task, evaluate across five dimensions. Score each 1-5.
1. Repetitiveness (1-5)
How often does this task recur with a similar pattern?
- 5 = Daily or more, nearly identical each time
- 4 = Weekly, same structure with minor variations
- 3 = Monthly, moderate variations
- 2 = Quarterly or irregular, significant variations
- 1 = One-off or rarely recurring
2. Judgment Required (1-5, inverted — high score = low judgment)
How much human judgment, creativity, or nuance is needed?
- 5 = Zero judgment — purely mechanical (data formatting, file conversion)
- 4 = Minimal judgment — clear rules cover 90%+ of cases
- 3 = Moderate judgment — some edge cases need human review
- 2 = Significant judgment — context-dependent decisions
- 1 = Deep judgment — requires empathy, politics, creativity, or taste
3. Error Tolerance (1-5)
What happens if the automation gets it wrong?
- 5 = Errors are trivially fixable, no consequences
- 4 = Errors cause minor inconvenience, easily caught
- 3 = Errors are noticeable, require some cleanup
- 2 = Errors cause real problems — wrong data sent, incorrect decisions
- 1 = Errors are catastrophic — legal, financial, safety, or reputational damage
4. Data Sensitivity (1-5, inverted — high score = low sensitivity)
How sensitive is the data involved?
- 5 = Public or non-sensitive data
- 4 = Internal but non-confidential
- 3 = Business-confidential
- 2 = Personally identifiable information (PII) or financial data
- 1 = Regulated data (HIPAA, SOX, classified) or credentials
5. Current Time Cost (1-5)
How much time does this task consume?
- 5 = Multiple hours per occurrence
- 4 = 1-2 hours per occurrence
- 3 = 30-60 minutes per occurrence
- 2 = 15-30 minutes per occurrence
- 1 = Under 15 minutes per occurrence
The Decision Matrix
Calculate the Delegation Score = average of all five dimensions.
| Score Range | Recommendation | What It Means | |---|---|---| | 4.0-5.0 | AUTOMATE FULLY | Build it and forget it. No human in the loop. | | 3.0-3.9 | AI-ASSIST | Claude does the heavy lifting, human reviews before finalizing. | | 2.0-2.9 | HUMAN + AI TOOLS | Human drives, Claude is a tool (research, drafting, analysis). | | 1.0-1.9 | KEEP HUMAN | This task needs human judgment, empathy, or accountability. Don't automate. |
Output Format
Present the evaluation as:
# Delegation Assessment: [Task Name]
## Scores
| Dimension | Score | Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| Repetitiveness | X/5 | [One sentence why] |
| Judgment Required | X/5 | [One sentence why] |
| Error Tolerance | X/5 | [One sentence why] |
| Data Sensitivity | X/5 | [One sentence why] |
| Current Time Cost | X/5 | [One sentence why] |
## Delegation Score: X.X/5
## Recommendation: [AUTOMATE FULLY / AI-ASSIST / HUMAN + AI TOOLS / KEEP HUMAN]
### Why
[2-3 sentences explaining the recommendation, highlighting the dimension(s)
that most influenced the decision]
### If Automating
[Specific recommendation for how to automate, what tools to use]
### If Keeping Human
[What the human should focus on, and where AI can still help at the margins]
### Risk to Watch
[The single biggest risk of following this recommendation, and how to mitigate it]
Rules
- Never recommend full automation for tasks scoring below 2 on Error Tolerance
or Data Sensitivity. Some tasks are too risky regardless of other scores.
- Be honest when automation isn't the answer. Saying "keep this human" is a
valid, valuable recommendation. Don't force automation where it doesn't fit.
- When recommending AI-ASSIST, be specific about the split. "Claude drafts,
you review" is better than "use AI to help."
- Consider the user's technical level. A non-technical user can't maintain a
custom Python script. Recommend tools they can actually use.
- If the scores are borderline (e.g., 2.8-3.2), present both options and let
the user decide. Acknowledge the ambiguity.
Chaining
- automate-audit → delegate: When the audit surfaces a task, use delegate
to decide if it should actually be automated
- delegate → decompose: If the recommendation is AI-ASSIST, decompose the
task to find which sub-steps are automatable
- delegate → prompt-architect: If the recommendation is AUTOMATE, build the
prompt to do it
Source & license
This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.
- Author: ryankolean
- Source: ryankolean/summit-claude-skills
- License: MIT
Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.
Reviews
No reviews yet, be the first.
Write a review
Versions
- v0.1.0 Imported from the upstream source.