How to run a weekly review of AI agent decisions with a team

Run it for 45 minutes, on the same day each week, from the verdict record rather than from memory. Cover four things in order: refusals, held actions that waited too long or were overturned, corrections that recur, and the certificate calendar. Every item ends with a named owner and a date, and the notes are filed with the agent's record.

What is the weekly review, and who runs it?

The weekly review is where the team looks at what its agents decided, not just how much they did. Throughput belongs in a dashboard. This meeting is about judgement: where the agent stopped, where people stopped it, and what the team learned. A separate performance review covers volumes and timings; see how to run a weekly AI agent performance review for that.

The agent owner runs it. Reviewers and approvers who worked the queue that week attend. The process owner attends at least monthly. A second-line representative can sit in occasionally without taking actions. For the skills each attendee brings, see our guide to AI agent skills by role.

What are the steps?

1. Agent owner, before the meeting: pulls the week from the record. Every refusal, every held action, every withheld attempt, and every correction reviewers logged.
2. Agent owner: picks the sample. All withheld attempts, all refusals for new reasons, held actions that waited past target, and held actions where the approver overturned the agent's draft.
3. Team: reviews refusals first. For each, was the refusal right? If so, did the person who asked get an answer? If not, which bound decided, and should it change?
4. Team: reviews held actions. Were they held for the right reason? Did the approver have what they needed? Should this kind of action be held at all?
5. Team: reviews corrections. Group them by cause: wrong source, missing fact, house rule not applied, tone. Recurring causes go to the agent owner as changes to brief or sources.
6. Agent owner: checks the certificate calendar. Agent certificates lapse after 90 days; any renewal due in the next month is scheduled now. The same for people's certificates that gate approval rights.
7. Agent owner: files the notes with actions, owners and dates.

How should the agenda be weighted?

Start with refusals because they are the most informative and the most neglected. A refusal means the agent saw a request it was not allowed to serve. Either the bound is right and the request should go elsewhere, or the bound is wrong. Both are worth ten minutes. Withheld attempts deserve a look too: the platform floor stopped an action for every agent at every depth, and the team should understand who asked for it and why.

Held actions come second. The question is not only "was the approver right?" but "was the hold useful?" A hold that approvers release unchanged every time may be a sign the limit is too tight; a hold that approvers often overturn means the agent's draft is weak. Neither changes in the meeting itself. Limits change through the process owner; depth changes only through certification.

Corrections come third, grouped. Single corrections are noise. The same correction from three reviewers is a brief or source problem. Different teams look at this differently: how support team leads review an AI agent's decisions and how compliance officers review an AI agent's decisions show two angles.

Which controls does the meeting provide, and what evidence does it leave?

Sample chosen from the record, not from anecdote. Evidence: the list of verdict references reviewed.

Every action has an owner and a date. Evidence: the action log, carried into the next week's meeting.

Changes go through the right route. Limit changes through the process owner; brief and source changes through the agent owner with re-certification where needed. Evidence: change requests referencing the meeting notes.

Certificate dates watched. Evidence: the calendar as reviewed, with renewals booked.

A weekly AI agent review meeting template gives you the notes format ready to copy.

What should you measure?

• Actions closed by the next meeting. Open actions that roll over three weeks running need escalating.
• Repeat causes in corrections week on week.
• Refusals with no answer to the requester.
• Held actions overturned by approvers, as a share of held actions reviewed, tracked as a count over time.

Where does it usually go wrong?

The meeting becomes a status update. Volumes and uptime crowd out decisions. Keep numbers to two minutes.

Only failures are discussed. Look at a few clean held actions too, so reviewers see what good looks like.

Changes are made in the room. Someone loosens a limit mid-meeting. Changes follow their own process and are recorded.

Reviewers stay silent. Junior reviewers often see the pattern first. Ask them before the senior people speak.

Where the Academy fits

Running the rhythm is one of the eight modules in Pryme Intelligence Academy's Operator track, alongside human review, teaching the agent and reading the workspace. Team leads who run this meeting are the Operator track's intended audience, and the HR equivalent is covered in training the HR team to review AI agent decisions.