Softlander Book a call
Agent identity, authorisation, and delegation

Agent-to-agent delegation controls

Prevent authority from expanding as agents delegate to one another

A coordinator starts assigning work to specialist agents. The decision is how to prevent authority from expanding as agents delegate to one another. The work begins with your actual workflow and looks for the evidence that separates intended behaviour from a consequential exception. It is particularly relevant to multi-agent architects and security owners. A useful outcome is an explicit account of what was examined, what remains uncertain, and which decision the evidence can support.

Book a 30 minute readiness callBrowse this capability group

The identity and delegated authority relationship

  1. Starting evidenceDelegation chains

    Establish the basis for delegating agent.

  2. Decision boundaryReceiving agent

    Prevent scope or lifetime expansion.

  3. Decision artefactAgent delegation graph

    Retain the scoped finding and its unresolved dependencies.

Conceptual model. Technical findings do not settle a disputed mandate.

Decision

Frame the decision around delegating agent

Questions and the evidence they need

Criterion / evidenceDelegating agent
Inspect delegation chains for the relevant constraint or observation.
Criterion / evidenceReceiving agent
Inspect agent role definitions for the relevant constraint or observation.
Criterion / evidenceDownstream tool
Inspect resource policies for the relevant constraint or observation.
Read each criterion against the available evidence before deciding that additional work is needed.

The decision is how to prevent authority from expanding as agents delegate to one another. This is relevant to multi-agent architects and security owners when a coordinator starts assigning work to specialist agents. Name the affected workflow, the consequence of a wrong decision, and the owner who can act on the result. The initial discussion should establish which evidence is already available and which uncertainty is material enough to investigate.

The specific failure hypothesis is that a specialist uses its own broader privileges to exceed the originating request. It remains a hypothesis until examined in the deployment. Existing internal tests or operating records may already resolve it; identify the uncovered question before commissioning additional work.

Mechanism

A handoff must preserve the upstream restrictions

Relationships within identity and delegated authority

Source or conditionDelegating agent
Carry the originating mandate into the handoff.
Crossing or choiceReceiving agent
Prevent scope or lifetime expansion.
Consequence or decisionDownstream tool
Check inherited restrictions before the operation.
Follow the check to the accepting resource. Each relationship needs evidence in the actual scope.

What this specialty examines

Agent-to-agent delegation should narrow the receiving agent’s available authority to the assigned task. A specialist may possess broad operational capabilities, but that does not automatically authorise every use of them on behalf of a coordinator. Preserve the originating limits alongside the request.

The review should follow the authority chain and test whether scope, expiry and restrictions survive each handoff. Identify the normal route, relevant exceptions and the authoritative record of the outcome. Inspect the relevant business-system record, enforcement event or process evidence alongside any reported status. Keep incomplete cases visible, with an explanation of what their absence prevents the owner from concluding.

The tradeoff to make explicit

For this decision, specialist agents need useful capabilities while delegated requests still require narrower action limits. Compare the available design or operating choices against the same intended outcome. If one option removes a required control or changes the task boundary, describe that difference before treating its apparent simplicity, speed or lower effort as an improvement. The decision should expose the tradeoff instead of burying it in an aggregate score.

Preparation

Connect the working inputs to the boundary being examined

Evidence packet for delegating agent

Illustrative working format

BasisDelegation chains
Locate transfer of responsibility, permitted authority, and unfinished-work ownership.
ContextAgent role definitions
Identify the accountable role and verify its decision rights or availability.
ObservationResource policies
Confirm the applicable revision and who resolves disputed interpretation.
DependencyDownstream tool logs
Retain the observed conditions and distinguish gaps from contrary evidence.
Illustrative preparation record. Availability, revision, and handling need confirmation.

Start with delegation chains, agent role definitions, resource policies and downstream tool logs. Identify the owner, revision and operating context of each source. Sanitised examples may support initial design, but differences from actual conditions should remain explicit. Where direct access is unsuitable, a customer-controlled evidence or execution route may be considered, with agreed handling and retention.

The scope also needs the identity control owner, agreed expectations for a representative subject-action-resource case, and the authority to inspect the relevant boundary. Specify what evidence would distinguish the failure in which a specialist uses its own broader privileges to exceed the originating request from acceptable behaviour. If stakeholders disagree about intended behaviour, resolve the interpretation before classifying the observed difference as a defect.

How the work proceeds

Carry delegating agent through to an accountable finding

From the scoped material to a decision record

  1. Establish conditionsDelegation chains

    Locate the source of the claimed authority.

  2. Examine the relationshipReceiving agent

    Apply the scoped check to downstream tool.

  3. Retain the findingAgent delegation graph

    Record the evidence, open dependencies, and the owner’s next decision.

Proposed sequence; resolve interpretation or access gaps before relying on the next step.

Map principals, resources and authority

Reconcile delegation chains, agent role definitions, resource policies and downstream tool logs with the workflow described by multi-agent architects and security owners. Identify the initiating actor, executing workload, target resource and component that grants access. Prepare paired cases that differ in one material authority condition, such as assignment, tenant, expiry or approval. The preparation output is an action map showing which permission is expected at each boundary and which records can verify it.

Exercise and review the authority path

Evaluate onward delegation, retries and substitution of another specialist. The authority chain should remain explainable even when the original participant is unavailable. Record who can terminate the task and how withdrawal reaches any descendants already executing work.

Select the identity control change

Consolidate the checked paths into an agent delegation graph and proposed scope-attenuation tests. Distinguish an identity-verification problem from an excessive permission, lost delegation context or delayed withdrawal. Assign the proposed change to the component that controls the affected action. Before recommending wider use, identify the allowed case and denied counterpart that would demonstrate the revised boundary without breaking legitimate work.

Indicative artefact

Make the agent delegation graph usable by its owner

Agent delegation graph

Illustrative working format

Annotated fieldAgent delegation graph
Specify the acting role, allowed resource effect, and enforcement boundary.
Annotated fieldScope-attenuation tests
Link supporting and contrary observations to inspectable evidence.
Annotated fieldReceiving agent evidence
Link observations and counterevidence to the case, configuration, and conclusion limit.
Illustrative artefact structure, not a completed engagement or an observed result.

A useful decision artefact is an agent delegation graph and proposed scope-attenuation tests. Supporting material may include selected cases, configuration or process records, evidence references, a disagreement log and prioritised actions. Retain the case selection rationale and material disagreements alongside the result; otherwise the result may be mistaken for complete coverage.

Illustrative scenario

Examine downstream tool through a constructed exception

A constructed case and its decision paths

Illustrative scenario

  1. SituationDelegating agent

    A specialist receives wider access than the coordinator was allowed to grant.

  2. Question to examineReceiving agent

    Follow expiry and resource restrictions through the specialist handoff.

  3. Conditional next actionDownstream tool

    Reject a handoff that widens the originating mandate.

Fictional example. No executed test, customer engagement, or measured outcome is implied.

Consider a fictional situation: a research agent asks a purchasing agent for price information, which the latter interprets as an order request. The scenario is illustrative, with no client engagement, executed test or measured improvement implied.

For price research, the purchasing agent should recognise the request as informational. Its ability to create orders is unrelated authority. Test whether the coordinator’s scope is preserved when the task is routed through a helper with broader permissions.

Scope and next action

Keep the conclusion within named authority paths

Confirm fit before the next commitment

Included boundaryDelegating agent
This review is limited to named authority paths.
PrerequisiteDelegation chains
The relevant owner must confirm access and the intended operating conditions.
Claim limitAgent delegation graph
Technical findings do not settle a disputed mandate.
Bring the triggering change and existing evidence; resolve the dependency that could alter the decision.

Identity design and technical testing do not establish a legal mandate or resolve a disputed business authorisation. Qualified IAM review is needed for material control conclusions. Any engagement depends on an agreed scope, qualified team, authorised access and confirmed availability. Bring the affected workflow, its current configuration or process, the triggering change and the evidence already available. The immediate scope question is prompted by the situation in which a coordinator starts assigning work to specialist agents; confirm which missing observation would change the owner’s next action.

Ways to engage

Related engagement scopes

Agent Release Readiness Review

The Agent Release Readiness Review is a fixed-scope, three-week independent test of one AI agent workflow that shows a release board what the agent does, what it is allowed to do and what happens when it is wrong, and ends in a signed recommendation.

3 weeksRead about this offer

AI Agent Authorisation Review

Make delegated authority inspectable. Trace who an agent acts for, what it can access and how that access can be withdrawn.

Read about this offer

AI Agent Runtime Security Review

Make every delegation explicit. Examine who the agent acts for, where it can execute and which tools it can reach when instructions alone are not enough.

Read about this offer

Continue exploring

Related insights and resources

Whitepaper15 MIN READ

Designing agent authority boundaries

Turn agent permissions into an enforceable action contract. Separate a model's suggestion from a resource owner's authorisation, test the boundary, and make delegation and revocation reviewable.

Agent security6 MIN READ

The permission boundary behind every agent action

An agent can only be evaluated in the context of what its tools allow. Examine identity, delegated authority and action boundaries before you put a workflow in motion.

Whitepaper5 MIN READ

Before your agent can act, define its authority

A working paper for the moment an AI system moves from advice to action. Map identity, permissions, approvals and recovery into an authority model your team can review and test.

A little more clarity

Questions to consider.

Start with the questions that shape a better decision.

May a receiving agent add its own authority to a delegated task?

Only under an explicit separately authorised rule. The recipient's broader technical permissions should not automatically enlarge the originating mandate. Otherwise a narrow delegated task can become a route around the sender's restrictions.

Which records preserve an agent delegation chain?

Start with delegation chains, agent role definitions, resource policies and downstream tool logs. Record their revision, owner and relationship to the intended workflow. Missing context should be identified before interpreting outcomes; a sanitised fixture is useful only when its relevant differences from the operating case are understood.

How should a specialist's broader privileges be constrained?

Follow the authority chain and test whether scope, expiry and restrictions survive each handoff. Observe the authenticated principal, mandate and resource decision separately. Include a permitted action and a denied counterpart so the review can establish whether authority is narrow enough without making legitimate work impossible.

What should an agent delegation graph disclose?

The proposed output is an agent delegation graph and proposed scope-attenuation tests. Include the selected conditions, supporting observations, unresolved differences and next decision. A reviewer should be able to follow each important conclusion back to its evidence and understand the limits without depending on an undocumented explanation from the author.

When should a receiving agent refuse delegated work?

Refuse or seek clarification when the task exceeds the originating mandate, lacks required evidence or asks the receiver to add unauthorised powers. Broad specialist credentials do not resolve a narrow delegation limit.

What if existing evidence already answers the question?

Review its scope, provenance and configuration before proposing new work. Existing work from multi-agent architects and security owners may already be sufficient. In that case, capture the decision, unresolved limitations and the change that would require another review. Additional assessment should address a real gap.

What would make the findings inconclusive?

Missing delegation chains, agent role definitions, resource policies and downstream tool logs can prevent a reliable interpretation, depending on the case. Record the specific missing observation and its implication. The owner can supply evidence, narrow the claim or defer the dependent decision; an incomplete case should not silently be counted as a pass.

Start with the decision you need to make.

Tell us about the agent workflow you want reviewed, and where you need greater clarity. Scope and availability are confirmed together.

Book a 30 minute readiness call Get the agent release checklist

Connected disciplines

Non-human identity governance

Put accountable ownership around non-human identities. The review connects identity inventories, owners, usage metadata, approvals and retirement records to a bounded review of identity and authority, giving the identity control owner a clearer basis for the next action.

Least-privilege agent design

Reduce agent permissions to those required by the agreed workflow. The review connects observed action traces, business requirements, permission grants and deny logs to a bounded review of identity and authority, giving the identity control owner a clearer basis for the next action.

Temporary credential architecture

Design short-lived authority that remains usable during real work. The review connects issuance policy, validity periods, renewal paths and task-duration traces to a bounded review of identity and authority, giving the identity control owner a clearer basis for the next action.