Duties move from doing the work to judging it. A job description for a team working alongside agents should list what the person reviews, which exceptions they own, what they may approve and up to what limit, which certificate that authority depends on, and what they record. Tasks the agent now does move from "does" to "checks".
What actually changes in the role?
Take any role where an agent now handles routine volume: accounts payable, claims, support, collections. The person still answers for the outcome, but their day changes shape. Less time keying, matching and drafting. More time on:
- Held actions: deciding what the agent drafted and stopped.
- Exceptions and refusals: cases outside the agent's bounds that need a person.
- Sampling: checking a share of what the agent did alone.
- Feedback: reporting patterns so the agent's sources or limits improve.
- Escalation: recognising when something is beyond their own authority.
A job description that still lists "processes 200 invoices a day" describes work nobody does any more, and says nothing about the judgement the business now depends on. The argument is made in your job descriptions are out of date the day an agent goes live.
How should each section of the job description change?
| Section | Before agents | After agents |
|---|---|---|
| Purpose | Process transactions accurately and on time | Make sure transactions handled by people and agents are accurate, fair and recorded |
| Key duties | Match, key, draft, send | Review held actions; decide exceptions; sample agent work; report patterns |
| Authority | Implicit, often unwritten | Explicit: what they may approve, at what depth, up to what value |
| Qualifications | Experience in the process | Experience plus a current reviewer certificate where approval rights depend on it |
| Measures | Volume, speed | Decision quality, reasons recorded, missed red lines, time per held item |
| Development | Process training | Renewal of certificate, update modules when the agent changes |
The authority row is the most important change. Approval rights should be written down: "May approve held supplier payments up to the customer's limit for depth 4 actions, while holding a current reviewer certificate." That sentence makes a lapse meaningful and gives the auditor something to test.
Who should write the new descriptions?
The process owner, with HR. The owner knows which decisions the agent now makes, which it holds, and which the business has kept for people. HR knows how to phrase duties, grading and measures. The AI agent reviewer job description template gives a starting layout. The role that owns the agent itself is different again; how to write an AI agent owner's job description covers it, including who may change limits, a question answered in who should be allowed to change an AI agent's limits.
An example: an accounts payable clerk
Take a mid-sized manufacturer. The old description for an AP clerk listed invoice entry, three-way matching, payment runs and supplier queries. After an agent took over matching and routine scheduling at depth 3, the description was rewritten:
- Reviews and decides held payments, including bank detail changes, new suppliers and amounts above limit.
- Samples agent-matched invoices weekly and records findings.
- Handles supplier queries the agent refers.
- May approve held payments up to a stated value while holding a current reviewer certificate.
- Records a reason for every approval, edit and decline.
The grade stayed the same. The measures changed from invoices processed to decision quality and timely review.
How do you keep descriptions current?
Agents change. Their depth rises as they earn certification and falls if a run fails. Their scope widens. Each change shifts what people review. Tie a review of affected job descriptions to any change in an agent's depth or capabilities, and build learning into the role through on-the-job training rather than one-off courses. The role-by-role picture is in AI agent skills by role.
Where the Academy fits
Pryme Intelligence Academy's certificates map onto rewritten job descriptions. Certified Pryme Operator suits reviewers, team leads and operations managers; Certified Pryme Builder suits whoever designs and certifies agents; Certified Pryme Architect suits those leading regulated, multi-agent deployments. Each has a fixed validity, so the qualification line in a job description can name a current certificate.
Questions people ask
Do job grades go up when roles become review roles?
Not automatically. Judgement work can justify a higher grade, but the decision should rest on the authority and accountability the role now carries.
Should the job description name the agent?
Name the capability, not the product: "reviews payments held by the AP agent". That survives a change of system.
What if staff resist the new descriptions?
Explain the authority they now hold and the training that supports it. Most resistance comes from feeling like a checker of a machine; clear approval rights show the opposite.