Write the Agent brief before adding capabilities.
Fictional starter — replace with your own material.
Source: https://clankercloud.ai/templates/agent-specification

Copy into Workspace yourself:

Use the fictional Pine Equipment Library brief below to produce agent-specification.md for review. Follow the outline: job and ownership, required inputs, saved output contract, reusable method, proposed knowledge/Skills/Tools, separate connection requirements, allowed actions, exceptions, and acceptance cases. Explain which facts belong in the Project. Do not create or run an Agent, connect accounts, approve reservations, send messages, share, or publish. Mark unspecified details as questions rather than inventing them.

# Fictional agent brief: Pine Equipment Library allocation reviewer
Brief ID: PINE-SPEC-1. Prepared 2026-10-18.
Owner: Leena. Reviewer: Tomas.
Job: review equipment checkout demand against serviceable stock and flag conflicts.
Audience: the internal equipment coordinator, who decides all actual allocations.
Inputs: a dated stock-and-rules file and a reservation CSV with approval status.
Output: allocation-review.md and open-questions.md in the selected Project.
Required sections: source cutoff, overlapping approved demand, shortage arithmetic,
pending requests kept separate, missing return windows, and coordinator questions.
Evidence: cite the stock source and reservation IDs behind every calculation.
Unknowns: missing return times remain unknown; pending requests are not approved.
Allowed work: read supplied records, calculate draft scenarios, and save review files.
Outside scope: approve a request, cancel a booking, notify borrowers, buy equipment,
or change a live inventory system.
Stable method: compare intervals, sum approved quantities, expose missing windows,
show arithmetic, separate pending demand, and verify saved outputs.
Project facts: stock counts, reservation rows, date range, and approved amendments.
Success example: 5 plus 4 approved projectors exceeds stock of 8 by exactly 1.
Difficult example: an approved reservation has no recorded return time.
Response: flag the incomplete window; do not invent a return or promise availability.
Initial rollout: one supervised review; no recurring worker is configured.


Illustrative result:
Fictional expected specification

Role: equipment-allocation reviewer. Owner Leena; reviewer Tomas.
Inputs: dated serviceable-stock rules, reservation CSV, review range, and timezone.
Outputs: allocation-review.md and open-questions.md in the selected Project.
Method: sum overlapping approved quantities, compare with stock, and separate pending requests.
Evidence: calculations cite stock sources and reservation IDs.
Exception: a missing return time stays unresolved; no later availability promise.
Scope: draft review only; no booking approvals, cancellations, purchases, or external changes.
Acceptance: overlap shortage arithmetic, a missing return window, and a separately supplied approved amendment. No test result has yet been observed.

Review checklist:
- The brief identifies the job, owner, reviewer, inputs, and saved output.
- Changing Project facts are separated from the reusable method.
- Every proposed capability has a necessary task step.
- Unknowns and external action boundaries are explicit.
- Acceptance cases have expected behavior but no invented results.