Skip to main content
ClrSlate
Request a demo

Solution · Review and sign-off

From idea to production

One feature from a customer’s ask to production, with every decision taken by the person who owns it.

Request a demo

Idea, then Lena decides, then Shipped.

Who decides · Lena Fischer · Head of product · a change to the committed quarter

How it runs

A key account asks for multi-entity invoicing. Without ClrSlate the feature lives in a sales thread, a product document, a dozen pull requests and a release checklist, and nobody can say on a Tuesday where it stands or who decided what.

A seat is a role a person and an agent hold together; the escalation matrix says who decides above each limit, seat by seat.

  1. Agent carriesWeek 1
    A key account asks for multi-entity invoicing
  2. Rules checkWeek 1

    PRD-R03

    A change to the committed quarter

  3. Person decidesWeek 1
    Lena Fischer takes it into the quarter
  4. Rules checkWeek 2

    PRD-R07

    The spec changes customer data

  5. Person decidesWeek 2
    Priya Nair signs off, with one change
  6. Agent carriesWeeks 3–5
    Coding agents open pull requests; each goes to its owner
  7. Person decidesWeek 6
    Mei Lin clears it; Tariq Hassan approves the release
  8. Agent carriesWeek 6
    Deployed in Thursday’s window
up the escalation matrix, by rule a person decides

Your CRM · key account

Key account · multi-entity invoicing

One customer, several legal entities, one invoice run. Wanted this quarter.

Owner: Tariq Hassan, product manager

Drawn as your tool shows it; ClrSlate adds the line that names the owner.

Illustration · Halden, a fictional company

Step by step

Who takes each step, in order.

For

Told end to end: Halden ships multi-entity invoicing. Halden is a fictional company.

  1. 01Tariq Hassan, product managerTakes the request on his seat; a change to the committed quarter goes to the Head of product (PRD-R03).
  2. 02Lena Fischer, Head of productTakes it into the quarter in place of a smaller item; the account is told.
  3. 03Priya Nair, security leadReviews the spec because it changes customer data (PRD-R07), and asks for one change.
  4. 04Ana Okafor, Head of platformChooses the option in the architecture review when the design crosses two services.
  5. 05Coding agents in the developer seatsOpen pull requests against the spec; each becomes a request on the seat that owns the service.
  6. 06Mei Lin, QA engineerClears the release on the evidence her agent assembled: test runs, the migration rehearsal, the scans.
  7. 07Tariq Hassan, release ownerApproves the release for Thursday’s window (REL-R03); the pipeline deploys and SRE watches it.

Where the decisions sit

Decision, who decides, up to where, and above that whom.

  • Scope change on a committed featureDecides: the product managerUp to: inside the quarter’s commitmentAbove that: the Head of product
  • Changes to customer dataDecides: the security lead reviewsUp to: the data rulesAbove that: the CTO
  • A design that crosses servicesDecides: the team’s architectUp to: within the architecture standardsAbove that: the Head of platform, through an architecture review
  • Merge to mainDecides: the seat that owns the serviceUp to: changes inside the service, checks passingAbove that: the architect, or the practice the change touches
  • A release is cleared to shipDecides: the QA engineerUp to: the quality standard and its evidenceAbove that: the Quality practice lead, as a recorded exception
  • Release to customersDecides: the owner of the releaseUp to: the scheduled window, checks passingAbove that: the department head

How much the agent decides, to start. Sizing, drafting, the packets, the evidence and the release notes run without asking. Scope, security sign-off, the architecture choice, each merge above its limit and the release ask the person who holds the decision.

The record it leaves. One request; decision records DEC-0882 (scope, Lena Fischer), DEC-0891 (security sign-off, Priya Nair), DEC-0897 (architecture, Ana Okafor), fourteen merge decisions, DEC-0917 (the schema change), DEC-0931 (quality sign-off, Mei Lin) and DEC-0932 (release, Tariq Hassan). Every link resolves: the spec, the pull requests, the migration, the deploy.

How it plugs in

No new inbox, no new tool to learn.

  • 01

    An app in your tools

    Connects to your repositories, trackers and chat as an app

  • 02

    A check, not a meeting

    Holds a decision as a check the owner clears

  • 03

    Where people already work

    Asks the owner where they already work, and carries out what was decided

HA
DEC-0917
  1. Request REQ-2214Opened from the repository
  2. Procedure Change review v3Run by the service agent
  3. Review Rulebook v12ENG-R08 sent it up the escalation matrix
  4. Decision DEC-0917Ana Okafor, Head of platform: approved, with a condition
  5. Carried out 4 actionsRepository, issue tracker, CI/CD, chat

Ask the record

Who approved the schema change on invoicing, and why?

Ana Okafor, Head of platform, on Tuesday at 11:20, with the backfill in the maintenance window. ENG-R08 sent it up because schema changes are beyond the service owner’s limit. Tests and scans passed.

DEC-0917REQ-2214ENG-R08 v12
A decision record, not an activity log: who asked, who prepared, which rule applied, who decided, what was done.
Every decision the feature took, linked on the record.

The tools it runs through

We connect to the systems you run, and build the connection before the demo.

What it uses

Where it leads

Start with howyou run today.

Bring one piece of work that breaks at the handoffs: a pull request waiting on three reviewers, an initiative spread across twelve tools, a release nobody owns. We model the seats it crosses, give one of them an agent, and follow one decision to its record.

Request a demo