Catalog / Business processes / Revenue operations / Number-to-Territory / Set the Quotas
reference process · revenue-operations · 15 activities · 11 on the roster
Set the Quotas
The map is fixed, and every patch on it now needs a number. This process reads what each territory carried before, models the attainment the plan is built on, and drafts a quota per patch. Each draft is tested against the capacity behind it, against what actually closed, and against the ramp cases nobody remembers until payday. The quotas add up to more than the number on purpose, and the over-assignment is a decision somebody signs rather than a rounding habit. The run ends when a named person approves the set and what it rests on is written down.
The walk
The document
One run
Adoption
The activities
What happens in a run
15 activities from the territory map is fixed for the period to every territory carries a signed quota, 2 of them gates a person has to sign. Drag the diagram to move along it.
Set the Quotas the territory map is fixed for the period → every territory carries a signed quota
the draft is nowhere near what the patch closed a patch has no quota, or two the sum does not clear the number the draft changed, so the tests run again the plan pays more than the number funds the signer will not sign this set the territory map is fixed for the period 1 Take in the Map and the N… the territories, the target, and when quotas are due 2 Set the Over-Assignment how much more than the number gets assigned a person signs · never an agent 3 Read What Each Patch Carr… what closed in each territory, period by period 4 Read Who Is in Role who holds each patch, from when, and for how long 5 Model the Attainment Curve what share of sellers land at which level 6 Draft a Quota per Territo… a first number on every patch, from the model 7 Test Against Capacity whether the seller behind the patch can work it 8 Test Against History the draft set beside what that patch actually closed 9 Work the Ramp Cases new hires, transfers and part periods get their own 10 Check Every Patch Has One no patch unquoted, no patch quoted twice 11 Roll Up and Name the Gap the sum against the number, and the distance stated 12 Adjust and Test Again the numbers move once, and the tests run again 13 Cost the Plan with Finance what the plan pays at the modelled attainment 14 Approve the Quotas a named person signs the set, not the average a person signs · never an agent 15 Record What the Quotas Re… the curve, the history and the assumptions used every territory carries a signed quota
The roster this process needs
Hover a name to see the activities it holds. A dashed one is a person, and stays one.
The document
The document, with the blanks marked
Everything in amber is yours to fill in: who owns it, when it takes effect, which platforms, which numbers, and who holds each activity. Everything else is the process, and it is the same wherever it is run.
Use in LangGraph
Use in Agent Framework
Use in CrewAI
Use in Google ADK
PROCESS: set the quotas id: <team> /set-the-quotas v1
from: ref/rev/set-the-quotas v1
owner: <who> effective: <date>
trigger: the territory map for <period> is fixed at a version
watch: record=<the territory map> system=<your territory map
store>
change=<the map for the period is fixed at a version>
concurrency: one run per period per segment - quotas for a segment are
set once, and a change inside the period is a new version
of the same run
goal: one signed quota on every territory, adding up to <over-assignment
target> of the number, each one tested against the seller behind it
and against what the patch has actually closed
phases:
take-in-map - human: the territories at their fixed version,
the target for the period, and the date the
quotas are due to the people they bind
owner: quota-setter after: trigger
automation: assisted
set-over-assignment - convenes decide-and-announce: how much more than
the number is assigned, decided by <who> and
written down as a figure with a reason
owner: <your sales leadership role>
after: take-in-map automation: never
read-history - runs collect-and-report: what closed in each
territory for the last <periods> , mapped onto the
new boundaries rather than the old ones
owner: analytics after: take-in-map
by: <days> automation: autonomous
read-sellers - runs collect-and-report: who holds each patch,
the date they took it, their notice and leave,
and how much of the period they are actually in
owner: capacity-manager after: take-in-map
by: <days> automation: autonomous
model-attainment - runs build-by-talent: what share of sellers land
at which level of quota, built from the last
<periods> and reported with its range
owner: statistician after: read-history
by: <days> automation: supervised
draft-quotas - runs build-by-talent: a first number on every
patch, from the carrying model and the curve
owner: quota-setter
after: set-over-assignment + model-attainment
by: <days> automation: supervised
test-capacity - runs assessment: whether the seller behind the
patch can work the number in the time it is
actually in role, at <coverage per account>
owner: capacity-manager
after: read-sellers + draft-quotas
automation: supervised
test-history - runs assessment: each draft set beside what that
patch closed, with every number more than
<percent> away from history named
owner: statistician after: draft-quotas
automation: supervised
ramp-cases - human: new hires, transfers, leave and part
periods each get their own number under a written
rule, not a share of somebody else's
owner: <your compensation role>
after: test-capacity + test-history
by: <days> automation: assisted
check-coverage - runs assessment: every territory carries exactly
one quota, and every quota names one territory
owner: coverage-check after: ramp-cases
automation: autonomous
roll-up - human: the quotas added up and set against the
number, with the distance stated as an amount
owner: quota-setter after: check-coverage
automation: assisted
adjust-retest - human: the numbers move once, by <how much> at
most per patch, and every test the change touches
runs again on the changed set
owner: quota-setter after: roll-up
by: <days> automation: assisted
cost-plan - runs allocate-and-reconcile: what the plan pays
at the modelled attainment, at target, and at the
high case, priced against <your pay plan>
owner: <your finance role>
after: roll-up + adjust-retest
by: <days> automation: supervised
approve-quotas - convenes approval: <who> signs the set as one
thing, with their name and the hour they signed
owner: <your sales leadership role>
after: cost-plan
by: <days> automation: never
record-basis - human: the curve, the history and the assumption
under every number, written where the next round
reads it
owner: quota-setter after: approve-quotas
automation: assisted
run-scoped:
seller-watch - runs roll-call owner: capacity-manager
every: <cadence>
from: read-sellers until: approve-quotas
handoffs:
take-in-map -> set-over-assignment [target-and-map]: the target, and
what the map says each patch can carry
take-in-map -> read-history [boundaries-for-history]: the new
territory boundaries, so history is read on the boundaries the
quotas will use
take-in-map -> read-sellers [boundaries-for-sellers]: the same
boundaries, and the date the quotas take effect
set-over-assignment -> draft-quotas [assigned-total]: the assigned
total, as a figure, with who decided it and why
read-history -> model-attainment [patch-history]: what closed per
patch per period, mapped onto the new boundaries, with every
remapping marked
read-sellers -> test-capacity [time-in-role]: who is in each seller,
from when, and how much of the period they are in it for
model-attainment -> draft-quotas [attainment-curve]: the attainment
curve with its range, and the data it was computed from
draft-quotas -> test-capacity [draft-numbers]: a number on every
patch, with the carrying figure and the curve behind it
draft-quotas -> test-history [drafts-for-history-test]: the same
drafts, at one version
test-capacity -> ramp-cases [capacity-findings]: every patch whose
seller cannot work its number, with the hours the finding rests on
test-history -> ramp-cases [history-findings]: every number more than
<percent> away from what the patch closed, with the history beside
it
ramp-cases -> check-coverage [ramped-numbers]: the ramped numbers,
each naming the rule that produced it and the dates it covers
check-coverage -> roll-up [coverage-verdict]: every territory with its
one quota, and any patch that has none named
roll-up -> adjust-retest [sum-and-gap]: the sum, the number, and the
distance between them
roll-up -> cost-plan [rolled-up-set]: the same sum, at the version it
was rolled up at
adjust-retest -> cost-plan [adjusted-set]: what moved, on which patch,
and by how much, with the tests rerun on the changed set
cost-plan -> approve-quotas [plan-cost]: what the plan pays at each
attainment case, and what it costs if everybody hits
approve-quotas -> record-basis [signed-quota-set]: the signed set, who
signed it, and when
deviations:
test-history -> draft-quotas [draft-far-from-history]: a draft is
nowhere near what the patch actually closed, so it is drafted again
check-coverage -> draft-quotas [patch-uncovered]: a patch carries no
quota, or carries two, so the drafts are worked again
adjust-retest -> test-capacity [drafts-changed]: the numbers moved, so
every test the change touches runs again on the changed set
cost-plan -> adjust-retest [plan-costs-too-much]: the plan pays more
than the number funds, so the numbers move again with the cost
attached
approve-quotas -> adjust-retest [set-not-signed]: the signer will not
sign the set, so it is adjusted with what they objected to
bindings:
roster: <who holds each role - agents claiming the abstract agents
above, and named people for the leader who signs, the finance
partner, the compensation partner and the regional managers>
systems: the territory map (read), the CRM (read),
the quota record (write), the pay plan record (read),
the reporting warehouse (read), the model store (write)
data: the target for the period, the map at its fixed version, the
last <periods> of closed revenue, <your pay plan> at a
version, <your ramp rules>
policy:
the quotas add up to more than the number by a figure a named person
decided. An over-assignment nobody signed is not one
no quota is set on a patch whose capacity was never checked
a number more than <percent> away from what the patch closed carries
the reason for the difference beside it
a seller in role for part of the period gets a number built from the
written ramp rule, never a pro-rated share applied afterwards
the quota set is approved as one thing by one person. Approving patch
by patch lets the total drift and is not allowed
a quota changed after approval is a new version saying what moved and
who decided it, and the version it replaces stays where it was
measures:
cycle time: <days> from the fixed map to the signed quota set
spread: share of sellers modelled to land between <low> and <high>
accuracy: the attainment curve against what sellers actually attained
quality gate: no quota published without its capacity test and its
history test attached
Copy
Take it somewhere
Use this process in LangGraph
close
Paste this into an assistant that can read the web, such as Claude, ChatGPT or Cursor. It reads the specification and the current LangGraph documentation, then writes two files: the graph, and a note on what did not survive the translation. Read the note first. What a runtime cannot express is the part worth arguing about, and this process is a draft to argue with.
copy the prompt
297 lines · the document is inside it, so nothing else is needed
Convert the business process below into a runnable LangGraph graph:
one Python file with a TypedDict state, a StateGraph, nodes, edges,
conditional edges and a checkpointer.
The document is a reference process written to the Agent Processes
specification. Read the specification before you start, because it defines
terms that look ordinary and are not:
https://agentcatalog.com/spec/agent-processes
Sections 6 (the phase graph), 6.5.1 (exception edges), 6.7.1 (deviations),
7 (automation) and 8 (handoffs) are the ones this conversion turns on.
Then read the current documentation for the primitives you will need, rather
than relying on what you remember of the API:
https://docs.langchain.com/oss/python/langgraph/interrupts
interrupt() and Command(resume=), which is how a gate stops a run
https://reference.langchain.com/python/langgraph/graph/state/StateGraph
StateGraph, add_edge, add_conditional_edges, defer
WHAT THE DOCUMENT ASKS FOR
These hold wherever the process lands, and they matter more than style.
1. Each phase under `phases:` becomes one step, and keeps its name.
2. `after:` gives the edges. `after: a + b` is a join and waits for BOTH.
Reading it as "either" is the defect the specification calls out by name.
3. Every handoff carries a key in square brackets. Each key becomes one field
on the run's state, named exactly as the key with hyphens turned into
underscores, and the sentence beside it becomes that field's comment. The key
is the stable name; the sentence is prose that may be rewritten.
4. A phase MUST NOT begin before its inbound handoff exists. Where that is
checkable, check it in the step rather than assuming it.
5. `automation: never` is a gate a person signs. The run stops there and does
not continue until a person's decision comes back. Do not turn one into a
notification, a log line, or an automatic transition, whatever the queue
looks like.
6. Each line under `deviations:` is a backward or sideways edge, returning to
the phase named on the right. The key in brackets names it, and that name
belongs in the code.
7. A phase whose `after:` reads like "X or Y, whichever could not finish" is an
exception edge: it is entered when those phases FAIL, not when they succeed.
Do not wire it as an ordinary successor.
8. Anything in angle brackets is a blank the adopting organization fills in.
Leave each one as a named constant at the top of the file with a TODO. Do not
invent a value, a threshold or a date.
9. Record the document's `from:` line at the top of the file, so it says which
reference process and which version it was generated from.
10. Run-scoped lines under `run-scoped:` are work that runs alongside the whole
process rather than at one point in it, and a run may not close while one is
unfinished. Say in the code what you did about them, including if the answer
is that the runtime has nowhere to put them.
HOW THAT LOOKS IN LANGGRAPH
11. A phase is a node added with `add_node`, under the phase's own name.
12. The state is a TypedDict. Each handoff key is one field on it.
13. A join is the trap. `add_edge(["a", "b"], "c")` looks right and releases
once: when a backward edge re-enters ONE arm, the joined node never runs
again, and the run ends early reporting success rather than raising. Mark the
joined node `defer=True` and re-check inside it that both inbound handoffs
exist.
14. A gate is `interrupt()` inside the node, resumed with `Command(resume=...)`.
The platform lets anything at all call resume, so require the resumed value to
name a person and a date and refuse anything else. Say in the fidelity note
that this proves only that whoever resumed typed a name, because
`Command(resume=True)` from a scheduled job is indistinguishable from a person
signing.
15. A deviation is `add_conditional_edges` with a routing function named after
the key in brackets.
16. Pass a durable checkpointer rather than taking the in-memory default. The
gates wait days, and the default loses every paused run on restart.
17. Leave every phase body unimplemented, raising until somebody registers an
implementation. The automation level is a blank, so writing a body would
answer on the adopter's behalf whether an agent may do that work.
Produce a second file alongside it, `FIDELITY.md`, and treat it as the more
important of the two. The code is for whoever builds this. The fidelity note
is for whoever has to decide whether this platform suits the process at all,
and that is usually a different person who will never read the code.
It has three parts.
**What came across.** Briefly: how many phases became steps, how many handoff
keys became state fields, which gates stop the run, which deviations became
edges. Counts and names, not reassurance.
**What did not, and what was done instead.** One entry per gap. For each one,
say what the document requires, what the platform can actually express, what
you did in its place, and what breaks if somebody later removes your
workaround. This last part matters most: a workaround nobody understands is a
workaround somebody deletes.
**What a person still has to decide.** The blanks are not a translation
failure, they are the point of a reference process, so list what has to be
filled in before this could run against anything real, and say which of those
choices the platform constrains.
Write it in plain English for somebody who has not read the specification, and
do not soften it. A translation of a reference process is a draft to argue
with, not a build artifact, and the honest account of what was lost is the most
useful thing you will produce.
Here is the process document.
```
PROCESS: set the quotas id: <team>/set-the-quotas v1
from: ref/rev/set-the-quotas v1
owner: <who> effective: <date>
trigger: the territory map for <period> is fixed at a version
watch: record=<the territory map> system=<your territory map
store>
change=<the map for the period is fixed at a version>
concurrency: one run per period per segment - quotas for a segment are
set once, and a change inside the period is a new version
of the same run
goal: one signed quota on every territory, adding up to <over-assignment
target> of the number, each one tested against the seller behind it
and against what the patch has actually closed
phases:
take-in-map - human: the territories at their fixed version,
the target for the period, and the date the
quotas are due to the people they bind
owner: quota-setter after: trigger
automation: assisted
set-over-assignment - convenes decide-and-announce: how much more than
the number is assigned, decided by <who> and
written down as a figure with a reason
owner: <your sales leadership role>
after: take-in-map automation: never
read-history - runs collect-and-report: what closed in each
territory for the last <periods>, mapped onto the
new boundaries rather than the old ones
owner: analytics after: take-in-map
by: <days> automation: autonomous
read-sellers - runs collect-and-report: who holds each patch,
the date they took it, their notice and leave,
and how much of the period they are actually in
owner: capacity-manager after: take-in-map
by: <days> automation: autonomous
model-attainment - runs build-by-talent: what share of sellers land
at which level of quota, built from the last
<periods> and reported with its range
owner: statistician after: read-history
by: <days> automation: supervised
draft-quotas - runs build-by-talent: a first number on every
patch, from the carrying model and the curve
owner: quota-setter
after: set-over-assignment + model-attainment
by: <days> automation: supervised
test-capacity - runs assessment: whether the seller behind the
patch can work the number in the time it is
actually in role, at <coverage per account>
owner: capacity-manager
after: read-sellers + draft-quotas
automation: supervised
test-history - runs assessment: each draft set beside what that
patch closed, with every number more than
<percent> away from history named
owner: statistician after: draft-quotas
automation: supervised
ramp-cases - human: new hires, transfers, leave and part
periods each get their own number under a written
rule, not a share of somebody else's
owner: <your compensation role>
after: test-capacity + test-history
by: <days> automation: assisted
check-coverage - runs assessment: every territory carries exactly
one quota, and every quota names one territory
owner: coverage-check after: ramp-cases
automation: autonomous
roll-up - human: the quotas added up and set against the
number, with the distance stated as an amount
owner: quota-setter after: check-coverage
automation: assisted
adjust-retest - human: the numbers move once, by <how much> at
most per patch, and every test the change touches
runs again on the changed set
owner: quota-setter after: roll-up
by: <days> automation: assisted
cost-plan - runs allocate-and-reconcile: what the plan pays
at the modelled attainment, at target, and at the
high case, priced against <your pay plan>
owner: <your finance role>
after: roll-up + adjust-retest
by: <days> automation: supervised
approve-quotas - convenes approval: <who> signs the set as one
thing, with their name and the hour they signed
owner: <your sales leadership role>
after: cost-plan
by: <days> automation: never
record-basis - human: the curve, the history and the assumption
under every number, written where the next round
reads it
owner: quota-setter after: approve-quotas
automation: assisted
run-scoped:
seller-watch - runs roll-call owner: capacity-manager
every: <cadence>
from: read-sellers until: approve-quotas
handoffs:
take-in-map -> set-over-assignment [target-and-map]: the target, and
what the map says each patch can carry
take-in-map -> read-history [boundaries-for-history]: the new
territory boundaries, so history is read on the boundaries the
quotas will use
take-in-map -> read-sellers [boundaries-for-sellers]: the same
boundaries, and the date the quotas take effect
set-over-assignment -> draft-quotas [assigned-total]: the assigned
total, as a figure, with who decided it and why
read-history -> model-attainment [patch-history]: what closed per
patch per period, mapped onto the new boundaries, with every
remapping marked
read-sellers -> test-capacity [time-in-role]: who is in each seller,
from when, and how much of the period they are in it for
model-attainment -> draft-quotas [attainment-curve]: the attainment
curve with its range, and the data it was computed from
draft-quotas -> test-capacity [draft-numbers]: a number on every
patch, with the carrying figure and the curve behind it
draft-quotas -> test-history [drafts-for-history-test]: the same
drafts, at one version
test-capacity -> ramp-cases [capacity-findings]: every patch whose
seller cannot work its number, with the hours the finding rests on
test-history -> ramp-cases [history-findings]: every number more than
<percent> away from what the patch closed, with the history beside
it
ramp-cases -> check-coverage [ramped-numbers]: the ramped numbers,
each naming the rule that produced it and the dates it covers
check-coverage -> roll-up [coverage-verdict]: every territory with its
one quota, and any patch that has none named
roll-up -> adjust-retest [sum-and-gap]: the sum, the number, and the
distance between them
roll-up -> cost-plan [rolled-up-set]: the same sum, at the version it
was rolled up at
adjust-retest -> cost-plan [adjusted-set]: what moved, on which patch,
and by how much, with the tests rerun on the changed set
cost-plan -> approve-quotas [plan-cost]: what the plan pays at each
attainment case, and what it costs if everybody hits
approve-quotas -> record-basis [signed-quota-set]: the signed set, who
signed it, and when
deviations:
test-history -> draft-quotas [draft-far-from-history]: a draft is
nowhere near what the patch actually closed, so it is drafted again
check-coverage -> draft-quotas [patch-uncovered]: a patch carries no
quota, or carries two, so the drafts are worked again
adjust-retest -> test-capacity [drafts-changed]: the numbers moved, so
every test the change touches runs again on the changed set
cost-plan -> adjust-retest [plan-costs-too-much]: the plan pays more
than the number funds, so the numbers move again with the cost
attached
approve-quotas -> adjust-retest [set-not-signed]: the signer will not
sign the set, so it is adjusted with what they objected to
bindings:
roster: <who holds each role - agents claiming the abstract agents
above, and named people for the leader who signs, the finance
partner, the compensation partner and the regional managers>
systems: the territory map (read), the CRM (read),
the quota record (write), the pay plan record (read),
the reporting warehouse (read), the model store (write)
data: the target for the period, the map at its fixed version, the
last <periods> of closed revenue, <your pay plan> at a
version, <your ramp rules>
policy:
the quotas add up to more than the number by a figure a named person
decided. An over-assignment nobody signed is not one
no quota is set on a patch whose capacity was never checked
a number more than <percent> away from what the patch closed carries
the reason for the difference beside it
a seller in role for part of the period gets a number built from the
written ramp rule, never a pro-rated share applied afterwards
the quota set is approved as one thing by one person. Approving patch
by patch lets the total drift and is not allowed
a quota changed after approval is a new version saying what moved and
who decided it, and the version it replaces stays where it was
measures:
cycle time: <days> from the fixed map to the signed quota set
spread: share of sellers modelled to land between <low> and <high>
accuracy: the attainment curve against what sellers actually attained
quality gate: no quota published without its capacity test and its
history test attached
```
Take it somewhere
Use this process in Microsoft Agent Framework
close
Paste this into an assistant that can read the web, such as Claude, ChatGPT or Cursor. It reads the specification and the current Agent Framework documentation, then writes two files: the workflow, and a note on what did not survive the translation. Read the note first. What a runtime cannot express is the part worth arguing about, and this process is a draft to argue with.
copy the prompt
352 lines · the document is inside it, so nothing else is needed
Convert the business process below into a runnable Microsoft Agent Framework workflow:
one Python file with Executor classes, a WorkflowBuilder, typed edges,
request_info gates and durable checkpoint storage.
The document is a reference process written to the Agent Processes
specification. Read the specification before you start, because it defines
terms that look ordinary and are not:
https://agentcatalog.com/spec/agent-processes
Sections 6 (the phase graph), 6.5.1 (exception edges), 6.7.1 (deviations),
7 (automation) and 8 (handoffs) are the ones this conversion turns on.
Then read the current documentation for the primitives you will need, rather
than relying on what you remember of the API:
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/agent-framework/workflows/human-in-the-loop
ctx.request_info, @response_handler, and answering a parked run later
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/agent-framework/workflows/checkpoints
what a checkpoint holds, and allowed_checkpoint_types
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/agent-framework/concepts/workflows/edges
add_edge with condition, add_fan_in_edges, add_switch_case_edge_group
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/agent-framework/concepts/workflows/state
ctx.set_state and ctx.get_state as they actually are today
WHAT THE DOCUMENT ASKS FOR
These hold wherever the process lands, and they matter more than style.
1. Each phase under `phases:` becomes one step, and keeps its name.
2. `after:` gives the edges. `after: a + b` is a join and waits for BOTH.
Reading it as "either" is the defect the specification calls out by name.
3. Every handoff carries a key in square brackets. Each key becomes one field
on the run's state, named exactly as the key with hyphens turned into
underscores, and the sentence beside it becomes that field's comment. The key
is the stable name; the sentence is prose that may be rewritten.
4. A phase MUST NOT begin before its inbound handoff exists. Where that is
checkable, check it in the step rather than assuming it.
5. `automation: never` is a gate a person signs. The run stops there and does
not continue until a person's decision comes back. Do not turn one into a
notification, a log line, or an automatic transition, whatever the queue
looks like.
6. Each line under `deviations:` is a backward or sideways edge, returning to
the phase named on the right. The key in brackets names it, and that name
belongs in the code.
7. A phase whose `after:` reads like "X or Y, whichever could not finish" is an
exception edge: it is entered when those phases FAIL, not when they succeed.
Do not wire it as an ordinary successor.
8. Anything in angle brackets is a blank the adopting organization fills in.
Leave each one as a named constant at the top of the file with a TODO. Do not
invent a value, a threshold or a date.
9. Record the document's `from:` line at the top of the file, so it says which
reference process and which version it was generated from.
10. Run-scoped lines under `run-scoped:` are work that runs alongside the whole
process rather than at one point in it, and a run may not close while one is
unfinished. Say in the code what you did about them, including if the answer
is that the runtime has nowhere to put them.
HOW THAT LOOKS IN MICROSOFT AGENT FRAMEWORK
11. Write for Python, and read those pages before writing a line. This API has
moved: `set_shared_state`, `RequestInfoExecutor`, `RequestInfoMessage` and
`send_responses_streaming` are all in the training data and none of them exist
any more. The .NET workflow API differs in kind rather than in spelling, so a
file written for one does not port by renaming.
12. A phase is a class deriving from `Executor` whose `super().__init__(id=...)`
takes the phase name verbatim. The id is not cosmetic: a checkpoint stores a
signature over the topology and the executor ids, so an id built from a run, a
timestamp or a counter cannot be resumed into.
13. Give each phase a `@handler` method and move work on with
`await ctx.send_message(...)`. A handler that returns without sending is a dead
end: the branch stops, the run converges, and it reports success. So a phase
you are deliberately leaving unimplemented must still send a placeholder
onward. Do not stub with `raise NotImplementedError`, which fails the run
instead of leaving it runnable.
14. `after: a` is `builder.add_edge(a, b)`. `after: a + b` is
`builder.add_fan_in_edges([a, b], target)`, and the target's handler must be
annotated `list[T]`, because a fan-in delivers one aggregated list rather than
the separate messages. A handler typed for the single value is dropped as a
mismatch with nothing raised.
15. The join is the trap here, and it is the opposite of LangGraph's. The
barrier re-arms: it clears its buffer when it fires and then demands a fresh
message from every source. So a deviation that re-enters ONE arm parks the
run forever waiting for an arm that will not run again, and the workflow ends
IDLE reporting success. Wherever a deviation re-enters one arm of a join,
replace the barrier with an ordinary edge from each arm into a small executor
that records each arrival with `ctx.set_state` and only forwards when every
expected key is present, and say in a comment that putting `add_fan_in_edges`
back reintroduces the stall.
16. A phase that is both a join target and a deviation target needs two
handlers, one annotated `list[T]` for the barrier and one annotated `T` for the
backward message. Write only the list handler and every backward edge into it
is discarded as a type mismatch, silently.
17. `automation: never` is `await ctx.request_info(request_data=...,
response_type=...)` inside the phase, answered by a `@response_handler` on the
same executor whose annotations match those exact types. The run parks at
`IDLE_WITH_PENDING_REQUESTS` and the host answers with
`workflow.run(stream=True, responses={request_id: value})`. If no handler
matches the pair, the framework logs a warning and parks anyway, so the gate
reads as working right up until somebody asks why the approval did not take.
18. A gate is only a gate if the wait survives a restart, so pass
`checkpoint_storage=FileCheckpointStorage(...)` to the builder. Checkpointing
is off by default and `InMemoryCheckpointStorage` reads as configured while
persisting nothing. Register every handoff payload type in
`allowed_checkpoint_types`, or the first restore raises. Anything an executor
keeps as an instance attribute is absent after a restore unless you export it
from `on_checkpoint_save` and read it back in `on_checkpoint_restore`, and it
comes back empty rather than missing.
19. Each line under `deviations:` is `builder.add_edge(source, earlier,
condition=fn)` with `fn` named after the key. Cycles are legal and unchecked,
but raise `max_iterations` well above its default of 100, because several live
cycles will exhaust a budget sized for a straight line and fail with a message
about convergence that reads like a broken graph. Keep the ordinary forward
edge unconditional and add each deviation beside it: a condition that returns
false is dropped with no event, so a forward path expressed as a condition
dies silently on every normal run, which is most of them.
20. Handoff values go in `ctx.set_state(key, value)` and come back from
`ctx.get_state(key)`, untyped and unchecked. A write is visible to its writer
at once and to everyone else only in the next superstep, and two writers of one
key in a superstep keep the last write. Never read a key in the same superstep
another phase wrote it.
21. There are no timers, no deadlines and no scheduled wakes. Nothing in
`run-scoped:` becomes an executor and `by:` has no expression at all, so write
them as comments naming where they start and stop, and say plainly in the
fidelity note that a run can close over an unfinished run-scoped line. Do not
fake a deadline with a sleep inside a handler, which blocks the whole superstep
barrier, and never let an expiring wait release a gate.
Produce a second file alongside it, `FIDELITY.md`, and treat it as the more
important of the two. The code is for whoever builds this. The fidelity note
is for whoever has to decide whether this platform suits the process at all,
and that is usually a different person who will never read the code.
It has three parts.
**What came across.** Briefly: how many phases became steps, how many handoff
keys became state fields, which gates stop the run, which deviations became
edges. Counts and names, not reassurance.
**What did not, and what was done instead.** One entry per gap. For each one,
say what the document requires, what the platform can actually express, what
you did in its place, and what breaks if somebody later removes your
workaround. This last part matters most: a workaround nobody understands is a
workaround somebody deletes.
**What a person still has to decide.** The blanks are not a translation
failure, they are the point of a reference process, so list what has to be
filled in before this could run against anything real, and say which of those
choices the platform constrains.
Write it in plain English for somebody who has not read the specification, and
do not soften it. A translation of a reference process is a draft to argue
with, not a build artifact, and the honest account of what was lost is the most
useful thing you will produce.
Here is the process document.
```
PROCESS: set the quotas id: <team>/set-the-quotas v1
from: ref/rev/set-the-quotas v1
owner: <who> effective: <date>
trigger: the territory map for <period> is fixed at a version
watch: record=<the territory map> system=<your territory map
store>
change=<the map for the period is fixed at a version>
concurrency: one run per period per segment - quotas for a segment are
set once, and a change inside the period is a new version
of the same run
goal: one signed quota on every territory, adding up to <over-assignment
target> of the number, each one tested against the seller behind it
and against what the patch has actually closed
phases:
take-in-map - human: the territories at their fixed version,
the target for the period, and the date the
quotas are due to the people they bind
owner: quota-setter after: trigger
automation: assisted
set-over-assignment - convenes decide-and-announce: how much more than
the number is assigned, decided by <who> and
written down as a figure with a reason
owner: <your sales leadership role>
after: take-in-map automation: never
read-history - runs collect-and-report: what closed in each
territory for the last <periods>, mapped onto the
new boundaries rather than the old ones
owner: analytics after: take-in-map
by: <days> automation: autonomous
read-sellers - runs collect-and-report: who holds each patch,
the date they took it, their notice and leave,
and how much of the period they are actually in
owner: capacity-manager after: take-in-map
by: <days> automation: autonomous
model-attainment - runs build-by-talent: what share of sellers land
at which level of quota, built from the last
<periods> and reported with its range
owner: statistician after: read-history
by: <days> automation: supervised
draft-quotas - runs build-by-talent: a first number on every
patch, from the carrying model and the curve
owner: quota-setter
after: set-over-assignment + model-attainment
by: <days> automation: supervised
test-capacity - runs assessment: whether the seller behind the
patch can work the number in the time it is
actually in role, at <coverage per account>
owner: capacity-manager
after: read-sellers + draft-quotas
automation: supervised
test-history - runs assessment: each draft set beside what that
patch closed, with every number more than
<percent> away from history named
owner: statistician after: draft-quotas
automation: supervised
ramp-cases - human: new hires, transfers, leave and part
periods each get their own number under a written
rule, not a share of somebody else's
owner: <your compensation role>
after: test-capacity + test-history
by: <days> automation: assisted
check-coverage - runs assessment: every territory carries exactly
one quota, and every quota names one territory
owner: coverage-check after: ramp-cases
automation: autonomous
roll-up - human: the quotas added up and set against the
number, with the distance stated as an amount
owner: quota-setter after: check-coverage
automation: assisted
adjust-retest - human: the numbers move once, by <how much> at
most per patch, and every test the change touches
runs again on the changed set
owner: quota-setter after: roll-up
by: <days> automation: assisted
cost-plan - runs allocate-and-reconcile: what the plan pays
at the modelled attainment, at target, and at the
high case, priced against <your pay plan>
owner: <your finance role>
after: roll-up + adjust-retest
by: <days> automation: supervised
approve-quotas - convenes approval: <who> signs the set as one
thing, with their name and the hour they signed
owner: <your sales leadership role>
after: cost-plan
by: <days> automation: never
record-basis - human: the curve, the history and the assumption
under every number, written where the next round
reads it
owner: quota-setter after: approve-quotas
automation: assisted
run-scoped:
seller-watch - runs roll-call owner: capacity-manager
every: <cadence>
from: read-sellers until: approve-quotas
handoffs:
take-in-map -> set-over-assignment [target-and-map]: the target, and
what the map says each patch can carry
take-in-map -> read-history [boundaries-for-history]: the new
territory boundaries, so history is read on the boundaries the
quotas will use
take-in-map -> read-sellers [boundaries-for-sellers]: the same
boundaries, and the date the quotas take effect
set-over-assignment -> draft-quotas [assigned-total]: the assigned
total, as a figure, with who decided it and why
read-history -> model-attainment [patch-history]: what closed per
patch per period, mapped onto the new boundaries, with every
remapping marked
read-sellers -> test-capacity [time-in-role]: who is in each seller,
from when, and how much of the period they are in it for
model-attainment -> draft-quotas [attainment-curve]: the attainment
curve with its range, and the data it was computed from
draft-quotas -> test-capacity [draft-numbers]: a number on every
patch, with the carrying figure and the curve behind it
draft-quotas -> test-history [drafts-for-history-test]: the same
drafts, at one version
test-capacity -> ramp-cases [capacity-findings]: every patch whose
seller cannot work its number, with the hours the finding rests on
test-history -> ramp-cases [history-findings]: every number more than
<percent> away from what the patch closed, with the history beside
it
ramp-cases -> check-coverage [ramped-numbers]: the ramped numbers,
each naming the rule that produced it and the dates it covers
check-coverage -> roll-up [coverage-verdict]: every territory with its
one quota, and any patch that has none named
roll-up -> adjust-retest [sum-and-gap]: the sum, the number, and the
distance between them
roll-up -> cost-plan [rolled-up-set]: the same sum, at the version it
was rolled up at
adjust-retest -> cost-plan [adjusted-set]: what moved, on which patch,
and by how much, with the tests rerun on the changed set
cost-plan -> approve-quotas [plan-cost]: what the plan pays at each
attainment case, and what it costs if everybody hits
approve-quotas -> record-basis [signed-quota-set]: the signed set, who
signed it, and when
deviations:
test-history -> draft-quotas [draft-far-from-history]: a draft is
nowhere near what the patch actually closed, so it is drafted again
check-coverage -> draft-quotas [patch-uncovered]: a patch carries no
quota, or carries two, so the drafts are worked again
adjust-retest -> test-capacity [drafts-changed]: the numbers moved, so
every test the change touches runs again on the changed set
cost-plan -> adjust-retest [plan-costs-too-much]: the plan pays more
than the number funds, so the numbers move again with the cost
attached
approve-quotas -> adjust-retest [set-not-signed]: the signer will not
sign the set, so it is adjusted with what they objected to
bindings:
roster: <who holds each role - agents claiming the abstract agents
above, and named people for the leader who signs, the finance
partner, the compensation partner and the regional managers>
systems: the territory map (read), the CRM (read),
the quota record (write), the pay plan record (read),
the reporting warehouse (read), the model store (write)
data: the target for the period, the map at its fixed version, the
last <periods> of closed revenue, <your pay plan> at a
version, <your ramp rules>
policy:
the quotas add up to more than the number by a figure a named person
decided. An over-assignment nobody signed is not one
no quota is set on a patch whose capacity was never checked
a number more than <percent> away from what the patch closed carries
the reason for the difference beside it
a seller in role for part of the period gets a number built from the
written ramp rule, never a pro-rated share applied afterwards
the quota set is approved as one thing by one person. Approving patch
by patch lets the total drift and is not allowed
a quota changed after approval is a new version saying what moved and
who decided it, and the version it replaces stays where it was
measures:
cycle time: <days> from the fixed map to the signed quota set
spread: share of sellers modelled to land between <low> and <high>
accuracy: the attainment curve against what sellers actually attained
quality gate: no quota published without its capacity test and its
history test attached
```
Take it somewhere
Use this process in CrewAI Flows
close
Paste this into an assistant that can read the web, such as Claude, ChatGPT or Cursor. It reads the specification and the current CrewAI documentation, then writes two files: the flow, and a note on what did not survive the translation. Read the note first. What a runtime cannot express is the part worth arguing about, and this process is a draft to argue with.
copy the prompt
357 lines · the document is inside it, so nothing else is needed
Convert the business process below into a runnable CrewAI Flow:
one Python file with a Pydantic state model, one Flow subclass, @start,
@listen, @router and a durable human feedback provider.
The document is a reference process written to the Agent Processes
specification. Read the specification before you start, because it defines
terms that look ordinary and are not:
https://agentcatalog.com/spec/agent-processes
Sections 6 (the phase graph), 6.5.1 (exception edges), 6.7.1 (deviations),
7 (automation) and 8 (handoffs) are the ones this conversion turns on.
Then read the current documentation for the primitives you will need, rather
than relying on what you remember of the API:
https://docs.crewai.com/en/concepts/flows
Flow, @start, @listen, @router, and_, or_, state, kickoff, plot
https://docs.crewai.com/en/learn/human-feedback-in-flows
@human_feedback, the provider protocol, from_pending and resume
https://docs.crewai.com/en/guides/flows/mastering-flow-state
@persist and what persistence actually promises, which is less than it sounds
WHAT THE DOCUMENT ASKS FOR
These hold wherever the process lands, and they matter more than style.
1. Each phase under `phases:` becomes one step, and keeps its name.
2. `after:` gives the edges. `after: a + b` is a join and waits for BOTH.
Reading it as "either" is the defect the specification calls out by name.
3. Every handoff carries a key in square brackets. Each key becomes one field
on the run's state, named exactly as the key with hyphens turned into
underscores, and the sentence beside it becomes that field's comment. The key
is the stable name; the sentence is prose that may be rewritten.
4. A phase MUST NOT begin before its inbound handoff exists. Where that is
checkable, check it in the step rather than assuming it.
5. `automation: never` is a gate a person signs. The run stops there and does
not continue until a person's decision comes back. Do not turn one into a
notification, a log line, or an automatic transition, whatever the queue
looks like.
6. Each line under `deviations:` is a backward or sideways edge, returning to
the phase named on the right. The key in brackets names it, and that name
belongs in the code.
7. A phase whose `after:` reads like "X or Y, whichever could not finish" is an
exception edge: it is entered when those phases FAIL, not when they succeed.
Do not wire it as an ordinary successor.
8. Anything in angle brackets is a blank the adopting organization fills in.
Leave each one as a named constant at the top of the file with a TODO. Do not
invent a value, a threshold or a date.
9. Record the document's `from:` line at the top of the file, so it says which
reference process and which version it was generated from.
10. Run-scoped lines under `run-scoped:` are work that runs alongside the whole
process rather than at one point in it, and a run may not close while one is
unfinished. Say in the code what you did about them, including if the answer
is that the runtime has nowhere to put them.
HOW THAT LOOKS IN CREWAI FLOWS
11. Build a Flow, not a Crew. A Crew is a team of roles with no graph, no join,
no persistence handle and no gate, and cannot express this document at all.
Each phase is one method on a single `Flow` subclass, keeping its name with
hyphens turned into underscores. A phase that genuinely needs role-based agents
builds its own Crew inside its own method body, and the Flow stays the graph.
12. Declare the state as a Pydantic model bound as the type parameter,
`class NegotiateTheAgreement(Flow[NegotiationState])`, and read and write
`self.state.field`. Never use the untyped dict form: the handoff keys are this
process's memory, and an untyped dict turns a misspelt key into a handoff that
is silently absent. Keep the auto-injected `id` field, which is what every
resume depends on.
13. `after: a` is `@listen(a)`. `after: a + b` is `@listen(and_(a, b))`. Never
write `or_` where the document writes `+`.
14. Check every inbound handoff at the top of the method and raise if one is
missing. `@listen` says when a method may run and says nothing about what is
in hand when it does.
15. The join is the trap, and it is proven rather than theoretical. `and_()`
empties its accumulator the moment it fires, so re-entering BOTH arms works
forever, and re-entering ONE arm after it has fired leaves it holding a single
trigger and waiting for the other for good. The cascade drains, CrewAI prints
that the flow completed, and `kickoff()` returns normally. So for any joining
phase that a deviation can send work back into, do not use `and_()` at all:
make the join a `@router` that both arms trigger, which reads the state fields
and emits its label only when every inbound handoff is present. A router is
re-evaluated against durable state every time and is never suppressed by the
once-fired set.
16. Do not write a phase as `@listen(or_(and_(a, b), "some_label"))`. There is
one accumulator per listener, shared across every branch of its condition and
wiped when any branch satisfies, so the label firing while the join is half
full erases the arm that had already arrived.
17. `automation: never` is `@human_feedback(message=..., provider=...)` stacked
under the method's `@listen`, with a provider whose `request_feedback` raises
`HumanFeedbackPending`. The run then persists, returns that object from
`kickoff()`, and a different process answers later with `from_pending(flow_id,
persistence)` and `resume(text)`. Do not take the default `ConsoleProvider`,
which calls `input()`: that gate exists only while somebody is watching a
terminal, and a run started by a scheduler either hangs or takes an empty
string.
18. Silence must not approve, and the platform's default is that it does. With
`emit=[...]` set, an empty resume collapses to `default_outcome`, or to the
first label when that is unset, with no model consulted and nobody named. Treat
an empty or unrecognised answer as a refusal in your own router. And write the
approver's name and the time onto the state yourself, because
`HumanFeedbackResult` carries the text, the outcome and a timestamp but has no
field for the person, which the specification requires.
19. Each line under `deviations:` is a `@router` named after the key, returning
a label named after the same key, with the target subscribing as
`@listen(or_(normal_trigger, "the_label"))`. Route rather than listen
directly, because a router is re-evaluated on every cycle while a top-level
`or_` listener is suppressed after it first fires.
20. An exception edge is a `try` and `except` around the failing phase's body,
recording the failure on the state and emitting an exception label from a
router. Wiring it as `@listen(or_(x, y))` fires when those phases SUCCEED, so
the clearing phase would run on every healthy run.
21. An unimplemented phase is a method with the document's own sentence as its
docstring and a bare `pass`, which is safe because listeners still fire on a
`None` return. An unimplemented `@router` is not safe: returning `None` emits
no label, every phase below it disappears from the run including the gates, and
the flow reports success. A stub router must return a hard-coded label with a
TODO beside it, or raise.
22. Turn persistence on with `@persist(SQLiteFlowPersistence(...))`, then treat
every phase that performs a real act as something that will run twice.
Persistence saves the state fields and nothing else, so a restart rehydrates
the data and runs the graph again from `@start`: a flow that had already sent a
written refusal sends a second one. Guard each acting phase with a state field
it checks and sets.
23. There are no timers, no deadlines and no cadences, and `run-scoped:` has no
counterpart at all. Put each `by:` value as a named constant, name the
run-scoped lines in the module docstring as unimplemented obligations, and say
in the fidelity note that no deadline in this document is enforced by anything.
These absences produce no diagnostic whatsoever, which is exactly why they have
to be written down.
Produce a second file alongside it, `FIDELITY.md`, and treat it as the more
important of the two. The code is for whoever builds this. The fidelity note
is for whoever has to decide whether this platform suits the process at all,
and that is usually a different person who will never read the code.
It has three parts.
**What came across.** Briefly: how many phases became steps, how many handoff
keys became state fields, which gates stop the run, which deviations became
edges. Counts and names, not reassurance.
**What did not, and what was done instead.** One entry per gap. For each one,
say what the document requires, what the platform can actually express, what
you did in its place, and what breaks if somebody later removes your
workaround. This last part matters most: a workaround nobody understands is a
workaround somebody deletes.
**What a person still has to decide.** The blanks are not a translation
failure, they are the point of a reference process, so list what has to be
filled in before this could run against anything real, and say which of those
choices the platform constrains.
Write it in plain English for somebody who has not read the specification, and
do not soften it. A translation of a reference process is a draft to argue
with, not a build artifact, and the honest account of what was lost is the most
useful thing you will produce.
Here is the process document.
```
PROCESS: set the quotas id: <team>/set-the-quotas v1
from: ref/rev/set-the-quotas v1
owner: <who> effective: <date>
trigger: the territory map for <period> is fixed at a version
watch: record=<the territory map> system=<your territory map
store>
change=<the map for the period is fixed at a version>
concurrency: one run per period per segment - quotas for a segment are
set once, and a change inside the period is a new version
of the same run
goal: one signed quota on every territory, adding up to <over-assignment
target> of the number, each one tested against the seller behind it
and against what the patch has actually closed
phases:
take-in-map - human: the territories at their fixed version,
the target for the period, and the date the
quotas are due to the people they bind
owner: quota-setter after: trigger
automation: assisted
set-over-assignment - convenes decide-and-announce: how much more than
the number is assigned, decided by <who> and
written down as a figure with a reason
owner: <your sales leadership role>
after: take-in-map automation: never
read-history - runs collect-and-report: what closed in each
territory for the last <periods>, mapped onto the
new boundaries rather than the old ones
owner: analytics after: take-in-map
by: <days> automation: autonomous
read-sellers - runs collect-and-report: who holds each patch,
the date they took it, their notice and leave,
and how much of the period they are actually in
owner: capacity-manager after: take-in-map
by: <days> automation: autonomous
model-attainment - runs build-by-talent: what share of sellers land
at which level of quota, built from the last
<periods> and reported with its range
owner: statistician after: read-history
by: <days> automation: supervised
draft-quotas - runs build-by-talent: a first number on every
patch, from the carrying model and the curve
owner: quota-setter
after: set-over-assignment + model-attainment
by: <days> automation: supervised
test-capacity - runs assessment: whether the seller behind the
patch can work the number in the time it is
actually in role, at <coverage per account>
owner: capacity-manager
after: read-sellers + draft-quotas
automation: supervised
test-history - runs assessment: each draft set beside what that
patch closed, with every number more than
<percent> away from history named
owner: statistician after: draft-quotas
automation: supervised
ramp-cases - human: new hires, transfers, leave and part
periods each get their own number under a written
rule, not a share of somebody else's
owner: <your compensation role>
after: test-capacity + test-history
by: <days> automation: assisted
check-coverage - runs assessment: every territory carries exactly
one quota, and every quota names one territory
owner: coverage-check after: ramp-cases
automation: autonomous
roll-up - human: the quotas added up and set against the
number, with the distance stated as an amount
owner: quota-setter after: check-coverage
automation: assisted
adjust-retest - human: the numbers move once, by <how much> at
most per patch, and every test the change touches
runs again on the changed set
owner: quota-setter after: roll-up
by: <days> automation: assisted
cost-plan - runs allocate-and-reconcile: what the plan pays
at the modelled attainment, at target, and at the
high case, priced against <your pay plan>
owner: <your finance role>
after: roll-up + adjust-retest
by: <days> automation: supervised
approve-quotas - convenes approval: <who> signs the set as one
thing, with their name and the hour they signed
owner: <your sales leadership role>
after: cost-plan
by: <days> automation: never
record-basis - human: the curve, the history and the assumption
under every number, written where the next round
reads it
owner: quota-setter after: approve-quotas
automation: assisted
run-scoped:
seller-watch - runs roll-call owner: capacity-manager
every: <cadence>
from: read-sellers until: approve-quotas
handoffs:
take-in-map -> set-over-assignment [target-and-map]: the target, and
what the map says each patch can carry
take-in-map -> read-history [boundaries-for-history]: the new
territory boundaries, so history is read on the boundaries the
quotas will use
take-in-map -> read-sellers [boundaries-for-sellers]: the same
boundaries, and the date the quotas take effect
set-over-assignment -> draft-quotas [assigned-total]: the assigned
total, as a figure, with who decided it and why
read-history -> model-attainment [patch-history]: what closed per
patch per period, mapped onto the new boundaries, with every
remapping marked
read-sellers -> test-capacity [time-in-role]: who is in each seller,
from when, and how much of the period they are in it for
model-attainment -> draft-quotas [attainment-curve]: the attainment
curve with its range, and the data it was computed from
draft-quotas -> test-capacity [draft-numbers]: a number on every
patch, with the carrying figure and the curve behind it
draft-quotas -> test-history [drafts-for-history-test]: the same
drafts, at one version
test-capacity -> ramp-cases [capacity-findings]: every patch whose
seller cannot work its number, with the hours the finding rests on
test-history -> ramp-cases [history-findings]: every number more than
<percent> away from what the patch closed, with the history beside
it
ramp-cases -> check-coverage [ramped-numbers]: the ramped numbers,
each naming the rule that produced it and the dates it covers
check-coverage -> roll-up [coverage-verdict]: every territory with its
one quota, and any patch that has none named
roll-up -> adjust-retest [sum-and-gap]: the sum, the number, and the
distance between them
roll-up -> cost-plan [rolled-up-set]: the same sum, at the version it
was rolled up at
adjust-retest -> cost-plan [adjusted-set]: what moved, on which patch,
and by how much, with the tests rerun on the changed set
cost-plan -> approve-quotas [plan-cost]: what the plan pays at each
attainment case, and what it costs if everybody hits
approve-quotas -> record-basis [signed-quota-set]: the signed set, who
signed it, and when
deviations:
test-history -> draft-quotas [draft-far-from-history]: a draft is
nowhere near what the patch actually closed, so it is drafted again
check-coverage -> draft-quotas [patch-uncovered]: a patch carries no
quota, or carries two, so the drafts are worked again
adjust-retest -> test-capacity [drafts-changed]: the numbers moved, so
every test the change touches runs again on the changed set
cost-plan -> adjust-retest [plan-costs-too-much]: the plan pays more
than the number funds, so the numbers move again with the cost
attached
approve-quotas -> adjust-retest [set-not-signed]: the signer will not
sign the set, so it is adjusted with what they objected to
bindings:
roster: <who holds each role - agents claiming the abstract agents
above, and named people for the leader who signs, the finance
partner, the compensation partner and the regional managers>
systems: the territory map (read), the CRM (read),
the quota record (write), the pay plan record (read),
the reporting warehouse (read), the model store (write)
data: the target for the period, the map at its fixed version, the
last <periods> of closed revenue, <your pay plan> at a
version, <your ramp rules>
policy:
the quotas add up to more than the number by a figure a named person
decided. An over-assignment nobody signed is not one
no quota is set on a patch whose capacity was never checked
a number more than <percent> away from what the patch closed carries
the reason for the difference beside it
a seller in role for part of the period gets a number built from the
written ramp rule, never a pro-rated share applied afterwards
the quota set is approved as one thing by one person. Approving patch
by patch lets the total drift and is not allowed
a quota changed after approval is a new version saying what moved and
who decided it, and the version it replaces stays where it was
measures:
cycle time: <days> from the fixed map to the signed quota set
spread: share of sellers modelled to land between <low> and <high>
accuracy: the attainment curve against what sellers actually attained
quality gate: no quota published without its capacity test and its
history test attached
```
Take it somewhere
Use this process in Google ADK
close
Paste this into an assistant that can read the web, such as Claude, ChatGPT or Cursor. It reads the specification and the current ADK documentation, then writes two files: the workflow, and a note on what did not survive the translation. Read the note first. What a runtime cannot express is the part worth arguing about, and this process is a draft to argue with.
copy the prompt
348 lines · the document is inside it, so nothing else is needed
Convert the business process below into a runnable Google ADK workflow:
one Python file with a Workflow, nodes, routed edges, a JoinNode,
RequestInput gates and a persisting session service.
The document is a reference process written to the Agent Processes
specification. Read the specification before you start, because it defines
terms that look ordinary and are not:
https://agentcatalog.com/spec/agent-processes
Sections 6 (the phase graph), 6.5.1 (exception edges), 6.7.1 (deviations),
7 (automation) and 8 (handoffs) are the ones this conversion turns on.
Then read the current documentation for the primitives you will need, rather
than relying on what you remember of the API:
https://adk.dev/graphs/routes/
nodes, tuple chains, Event(route=), JoinNode, back-edges
https://adk.dev/graphs/human-input/
RequestInput and the rerun_on_resume handoff
https://adk.dev/runtime/resume/
ResumabilityConfig, resuming by invocation id, at-least-once tools
https://adk.dev/graphs/data-handling/
Event.output against state, and the selector syntax in instructions
WHAT THE DOCUMENT ASKS FOR
These hold wherever the process lands, and they matter more than style.
1. Each phase under `phases:` becomes one step, and keeps its name.
2. `after:` gives the edges. `after: a + b` is a join and waits for BOTH.
Reading it as "either" is the defect the specification calls out by name.
3. Every handoff carries a key in square brackets. Each key becomes one field
on the run's state, named exactly as the key with hyphens turned into
underscores, and the sentence beside it becomes that field's comment. The key
is the stable name; the sentence is prose that may be rewritten.
4. A phase MUST NOT begin before its inbound handoff exists. Where that is
checkable, check it in the step rather than assuming it.
5. `automation: never` is a gate a person signs. The run stops there and does
not continue until a person's decision comes back. Do not turn one into a
notification, a log line, or an automatic transition, whatever the queue
looks like.
6. Each line under `deviations:` is a backward or sideways edge, returning to
the phase named on the right. The key in brackets names it, and that name
belongs in the code.
7. A phase whose `after:` reads like "X or Y, whichever could not finish" is an
exception edge: it is entered when those phases FAIL, not when they succeed.
Do not wire it as an ordinary successor.
8. Anything in angle brackets is a blank the adopting organization fills in.
Leave each one as a named constant at the top of the file with a TODO. Do not
invent a value, a threshold or a date.
9. Record the document's `from:` line at the top of the file, so it says which
reference process and which version it was generated from.
10. Run-scoped lines under `run-scoped:` are work that runs alongside the whole
process rather than at one point in it, and a run may not close while one is
unfinished. Say in the code what you did about them, including if the answer
is that the runtime has nowhere to put them.
HOW THAT LOOKS IN GOOGLE ADK
11. Build a `Workflow` from `google.adk.workflow`, and pin `google-adk>=2.0` in
a comment. Do not use `SequentialAgent`, `ParallelAgent` or `LoopAgent`: they
are deprecated in favour of the graph, and they carry their own defects around
state and control flow. The documentation moved to adk.dev, and anything you
remember about nesting agents rather than drawing a graph is out of date.
12. Each phase is one node keeping its name. Take the node kind from how the
phase resolves rather than from taste: a `human:` or `system:` phase is a plain
Python function node, and a `runs` or `convenes` phase is an `Agent`.
13. `after:` gives the edges, written as tuple chains in `edges=[...]`, and the
trigger is the `"START"` keyword. Take the order only from `after:` lines and
never from the order the phases are listed in.
14. `after: a + b` is a `JoinNode`, and it must be guarded, because this is the
worst trap of any runtime here. The join fires when every static predecessor is
marked COMPLETED, nothing ever un-completes a node, and stored outputs are
never cleared. So after a deviation re-runs one arm, the join fires the instant
that arm finishes and hands the next phase LAST PASS'S value for every arm that
did not re-run. It does not stall, it proceeds with stale data, and nothing
logs. Stamp each arm's output with a pass counter or a content hash, and have
the phase after the join compare the stamps and refuse to run when they
disagree.
15. Each line under `deviations:` is a routed back-edge: a router after the
phase on the left returning `Event(route=...)`, named after the key in
brackets, with one arm going back to the phase on the right and one going
forward. An unconditional cycle raises at construction, which is the one place
this model checks your work. Nothing budgets a routed cycle, so add your own
count and stop rather than looping forever.
16. Give every router an explicit `DEFAULT_ROUTE` arm, and route it to a phase
that stops and asks a person. A route value matching no key writes a log
warning, ends that branch, and lets the run finish reporting success with the
rest of the process never having happened.
17. `automation: never` is a `RequestInput` node of its own, never an `Agent`
asking a question. Decorate it `@node(rerun_on_resume=False)` and yield
`RequestInput(message=..., payload=..., response_schema=...)`, so the run
stops, persists, and delivers the person's answer to the node's successor as
its typed input. A resumed workflow runs its tools at least once, so any
irreversible act needs its own duplicate guard.
18. Make the gates durable or say plainly that they are not. Wrap the graph in
`App(..., resumability_config=ResumabilityConfig(is_resumable=True))` and pass
a persisting session service, never the in-memory one. Note in the file that
the command line and the web UI cannot resume a run, so whoever releases these
gates needs an operator surface that somebody has to write.
19. Every `Agent` in the graph gets `mode="single_turn"` and no `sub_agents`.
A non-empty `sub_agents` list silently adds a transfer tool, and a model that
uses it runs a different agent in this node's place while the graph's outgoing
edge fires on schedule regardless: the topology is honoured perfectly and the
work belongs to somebody else.
20. Model failure as a route, not as an exception. A node that raises does not
propagate: the failure is caught, recorded, and shuts the workflow down without
raising to the caller. So a phase that can fail catches its own failure and
returns `Event(route="could-not-finish")`, and the exception phase hangs off
that arm.
21. Keep every blank as a named module-level constant and never interpolate one
into an `instruction=` string. Angle brackets and curly braces are ADK's own
data selector syntax inside instructions, so a blank pasted verbatim stops
being a blank and becomes a selector.
22. `by:` and `not-before:` have no expression, and `@node(timeout=)` is not
one: it is an in-process wall clock that cancels the node and, because failures
are swallowed, ends the run silently rather than recording a missed deadline.
Nothing in `run-scoped:` has an expression either, and it must not be faked as
an ordinary node, because a node has to be reached and has to finish before
anything downstream starts, which is the opposite of what those lines mean.
Leave both out of the graph and name them in the fidelity note.
Produce a second file alongside it, `FIDELITY.md`, and treat it as the more
important of the two. The code is for whoever builds this. The fidelity note
is for whoever has to decide whether this platform suits the process at all,
and that is usually a different person who will never read the code.
It has three parts.
**What came across.** Briefly: how many phases became steps, how many handoff
keys became state fields, which gates stop the run, which deviations became
edges. Counts and names, not reassurance.
**What did not, and what was done instead.** One entry per gap. For each one,
say what the document requires, what the platform can actually express, what
you did in its place, and what breaks if somebody later removes your
workaround. This last part matters most: a workaround nobody understands is a
workaround somebody deletes.
**What a person still has to decide.** The blanks are not a translation
failure, they are the point of a reference process, so list what has to be
filled in before this could run against anything real, and say which of those
choices the platform constrains.
Write it in plain English for somebody who has not read the specification, and
do not soften it. A translation of a reference process is a draft to argue
with, not a build artifact, and the honest account of what was lost is the most
useful thing you will produce.
Here is the process document.
```
PROCESS: set the quotas id: <team>/set-the-quotas v1
from: ref/rev/set-the-quotas v1
owner: <who> effective: <date>
trigger: the territory map for <period> is fixed at a version
watch: record=<the territory map> system=<your territory map
store>
change=<the map for the period is fixed at a version>
concurrency: one run per period per segment - quotas for a segment are
set once, and a change inside the period is a new version
of the same run
goal: one signed quota on every territory, adding up to <over-assignment
target> of the number, each one tested against the seller behind it
and against what the patch has actually closed
phases:
take-in-map - human: the territories at their fixed version,
the target for the period, and the date the
quotas are due to the people they bind
owner: quota-setter after: trigger
automation: assisted
set-over-assignment - convenes decide-and-announce: how much more than
the number is assigned, decided by <who> and
written down as a figure with a reason
owner: <your sales leadership role>
after: take-in-map automation: never
read-history - runs collect-and-report: what closed in each
territory for the last <periods>, mapped onto the
new boundaries rather than the old ones
owner: analytics after: take-in-map
by: <days> automation: autonomous
read-sellers - runs collect-and-report: who holds each patch,
the date they took it, their notice and leave,
and how much of the period they are actually in
owner: capacity-manager after: take-in-map
by: <days> automation: autonomous
model-attainment - runs build-by-talent: what share of sellers land
at which level of quota, built from the last
<periods> and reported with its range
owner: statistician after: read-history
by: <days> automation: supervised
draft-quotas - runs build-by-talent: a first number on every
patch, from the carrying model and the curve
owner: quota-setter
after: set-over-assignment + model-attainment
by: <days> automation: supervised
test-capacity - runs assessment: whether the seller behind the
patch can work the number in the time it is
actually in role, at <coverage per account>
owner: capacity-manager
after: read-sellers + draft-quotas
automation: supervised
test-history - runs assessment: each draft set beside what that
patch closed, with every number more than
<percent> away from history named
owner: statistician after: draft-quotas
automation: supervised
ramp-cases - human: new hires, transfers, leave and part
periods each get their own number under a written
rule, not a share of somebody else's
owner: <your compensation role>
after: test-capacity + test-history
by: <days> automation: assisted
check-coverage - runs assessment: every territory carries exactly
one quota, and every quota names one territory
owner: coverage-check after: ramp-cases
automation: autonomous
roll-up - human: the quotas added up and set against the
number, with the distance stated as an amount
owner: quota-setter after: check-coverage
automation: assisted
adjust-retest - human: the numbers move once, by <how much> at
most per patch, and every test the change touches
runs again on the changed set
owner: quota-setter after: roll-up
by: <days> automation: assisted
cost-plan - runs allocate-and-reconcile: what the plan pays
at the modelled attainment, at target, and at the
high case, priced against <your pay plan>
owner: <your finance role>
after: roll-up + adjust-retest
by: <days> automation: supervised
approve-quotas - convenes approval: <who> signs the set as one
thing, with their name and the hour they signed
owner: <your sales leadership role>
after: cost-plan
by: <days> automation: never
record-basis - human: the curve, the history and the assumption
under every number, written where the next round
reads it
owner: quota-setter after: approve-quotas
automation: assisted
run-scoped:
seller-watch - runs roll-call owner: capacity-manager
every: <cadence>
from: read-sellers until: approve-quotas
handoffs:
take-in-map -> set-over-assignment [target-and-map]: the target, and
what the map says each patch can carry
take-in-map -> read-history [boundaries-for-history]: the new
territory boundaries, so history is read on the boundaries the
quotas will use
take-in-map -> read-sellers [boundaries-for-sellers]: the same
boundaries, and the date the quotas take effect
set-over-assignment -> draft-quotas [assigned-total]: the assigned
total, as a figure, with who decided it and why
read-history -> model-attainment [patch-history]: what closed per
patch per period, mapped onto the new boundaries, with every
remapping marked
read-sellers -> test-capacity [time-in-role]: who is in each seller,
from when, and how much of the period they are in it for
model-attainment -> draft-quotas [attainment-curve]: the attainment
curve with its range, and the data it was computed from
draft-quotas -> test-capacity [draft-numbers]: a number on every
patch, with the carrying figure and the curve behind it
draft-quotas -> test-history [drafts-for-history-test]: the same
drafts, at one version
test-capacity -> ramp-cases [capacity-findings]: every patch whose
seller cannot work its number, with the hours the finding rests on
test-history -> ramp-cases [history-findings]: every number more than
<percent> away from what the patch closed, with the history beside
it
ramp-cases -> check-coverage [ramped-numbers]: the ramped numbers,
each naming the rule that produced it and the dates it covers
check-coverage -> roll-up [coverage-verdict]: every territory with its
one quota, and any patch that has none named
roll-up -> adjust-retest [sum-and-gap]: the sum, the number, and the
distance between them
roll-up -> cost-plan [rolled-up-set]: the same sum, at the version it
was rolled up at
adjust-retest -> cost-plan [adjusted-set]: what moved, on which patch,
and by how much, with the tests rerun on the changed set
cost-plan -> approve-quotas [plan-cost]: what the plan pays at each
attainment case, and what it costs if everybody hits
approve-quotas -> record-basis [signed-quota-set]: the signed set, who
signed it, and when
deviations:
test-history -> draft-quotas [draft-far-from-history]: a draft is
nowhere near what the patch actually closed, so it is drafted again
check-coverage -> draft-quotas [patch-uncovered]: a patch carries no
quota, or carries two, so the drafts are worked again
adjust-retest -> test-capacity [drafts-changed]: the numbers moved, so
every test the change touches runs again on the changed set
cost-plan -> adjust-retest [plan-costs-too-much]: the plan pays more
than the number funds, so the numbers move again with the cost
attached
approve-quotas -> adjust-retest [set-not-signed]: the signer will not
sign the set, so it is adjusted with what they objected to
bindings:
roster: <who holds each role - agents claiming the abstract agents
above, and named people for the leader who signs, the finance
partner, the compensation partner and the regional managers>
systems: the territory map (read), the CRM (read),
the quota record (write), the pay plan record (read),
the reporting warehouse (read), the model store (write)
data: the target for the period, the map at its fixed version, the
last <periods> of closed revenue, <your pay plan> at a
version, <your ramp rules>
policy:
the quotas add up to more than the number by a figure a named person
decided. An over-assignment nobody signed is not one
no quota is set on a patch whose capacity was never checked
a number more than <percent> away from what the patch closed carries
the reason for the difference beside it
a seller in role for part of the period gets a number built from the
written ramp rule, never a pro-rated share applied afterwards
the quota set is approved as one thing by one person. Approving patch
by patch lets the total drift and is not allowed
a quota changed after approval is a new version saying what moved and
who decided it, and the version it replaces stays where it was
measures:
cycle time: <days> from the fixed map to the signed quota set
spread: share of sellers modelled to land between <low> and <high>
accuracy: the attainment curve against what sellers actually attained
quality gate: no quota published without its capacity test and its
history test attached
```
One run
A simulation of one run
The activities are on the left, whoever is doing the active one is on the right, and the record of the run builds up as it goes.
This run is built from the same rows as the diagram above: the left column is the activity list, the captions are the activity lines, the cast is the roster, and the labels on the wires are what the handoffs say actually passes.
Adoption
What you fill in
35 blanks to fill. Everything else is the process.
this process
from: ref/rev/set-the-quotas v1
Copy this line into your own document. It never claims this process is running anywhere; it records which draft yours started from, and it is what lets the catalog tell you when this one changes.
The header. Your own id, an owner, and the date it takes effect. One line records where it came from, and that line is what lets the catalog tell you when this reference process changes.
The roster. Which agent takes each activity, and which person takes each of the human ones. The process already names what it needs, so this is a lookup rather than a design exercise.
The numbers. Dates, budgets, cadences, and the targets in the measures block. Nothing here can be a reference value, because a target nobody chose is a target nobody meets.