<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Review Queues on Fondsites</title><link>https://fondsites.com/tags/review-queues/</link><description>Recent content in Review Queues on Fondsites</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en-us</language><lastBuildDate>Fri, 29 May 2026 13:43:57 +0300</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://fondsites.com/tags/review-queues/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>AI Agent Review Queues: Moving Human Judgment Without Bottlenecks</title><link>https://fondsites.com/ai-agents/guidebooks/agent-review-queues/</link><pubDate>Sat, 23 May 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://fondsites.com/ai-agents/guidebooks/agent-review-queues/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;Human review is often described as a safety measure, but in real agent systems it is also a queue. Work arrives, waits, gets inspected, returns for revision, moves forward, or stops. If that queue is poorly designed, the agent system can look productive while quietly shifting the burden to people who must sort through unclear artifacts and decide what is safe to accept.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The problem is not that humans are in the loop. The problem is that the loop is treated as a vague pause rather than an operating surface. A review queue should make judgment easier to apply. It should show what the agent produced, why it produced it, what evidence supports it, what risk is attached, what decision is being requested, and what happens after the reviewer acts.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>