Describe the finish
“Improve this” can generate a long list of reasonable tasks without a clear finish. In AI-assisted work, name one observable outcome. For example, checking a contact form is not finished because a test plan has been written. The agreed user journey needs to work, or the blocker needs to be identified.
Record the boundary too: what may change and what may not. Permission to make a local fix does not by itself authorise publishing it or processing real customer data. A clear task separates the work requested from the authority granted.
Delegate for a reason
An independent reviewer can notice things the implementer misses. Parallel work can help when the pieces are genuinely independent. But routing a small copy edit through several agents can add more waiting and coordination than quality. Choose according to the size and risk of the work, not the number of agents available.
When delegating, give each participant a distinct responsibility and name one person to check the whole result. Agree beforehand what each handover must contain. That keeps completion of separate pieces from being mistaken for completion of the task.
Evaluate the whole task
My work on AI-assisted workflows has made this a useful question: did the whole task improve? Compare waiting, repair rounds and the accepted result, not just the speed of the first response. A new delegation structure alone does not demonstrate an efficiency gain. Try a bounded change, compare similar tasks and keep the simpler approach if the extra structure does not help.
A useful next step
First agree what better means