A permitting supervisor finishes a custom fee-FAQ agent for the counter. What sharing action should come next?
Select an answer to reveal the explanation.
Short Explanation
A fee-FAQ helper locked in one supervisor’s pocket doesn’t help the counter—share it with the staff who need it. Team access beats a secret sidekick.
Full Explanation
Sharing the fee-FAQ agent with all counter staff who need it is the correct next action after a permitting supervisor finishes a custom helper. Custom agents deliver value when the people at the counter can open the same configured knowledge, instructions, and starters. Sharing to the operational audience turns a personal prototype into a desk standard and reduces one-off private chats that drift from approved fee guidance.
Keeping the agent only on the supervisor’s personal chat history with no team access fails because the counter never receives the tool. The supervisor’s private thread does not scale to peak lobby volume or night shifts.
Emailing the agent’s private system keys to a public neighborhood listserv fails as a security and governance breach. Credentials and internal agent configuration are not public communications; exposing them invites unauthorized use and tampering.
Deleting the agent immediately so counter staff cannot open a shared helper fails by destroying the asset just when sharing should expand access. Deletion is appropriate for unsafe agents, not for a finished fee-FAQ meant for the desk.
Exam caveat: After build and settings, AB-730 expects intentional sharing to the municipal role group that will use the agent—not hoarding, public key leaks, or premature deletion.
Operational check: Share to the permitting counter group, then have a non-supervisor clerk open the fee-FAQ agent, run a suggested prompt, and confirm knowledge and instructions match the supervisor’s build before declaring rollout complete.