Scale guard clause complexity to false-positive cost…

Match the number of qualifying conditions to the cost of false positives—use minimal guards for low-cost triggers and multiple defensive checks for high-consequence triggers.

When This Fires

When deciding how many guard clauses a trigger needs (complements When false positives exceed 30%, add guard clauses…)
When reviewing existing agents and finding that all triggers have the same number of guards regardless of consequence
When a low-cost trigger has become bogged down with unnecessary checks
When a high-consequence trigger fires inappropriately and causes damage

Common Failure Mode

Applying uniform guard complexity across all agents: either zero guards for everything (efficient but reckless for high-stakes agents) or multiple guards for everything (safe but creates unnecessary friction for low-stakes agents). The optimal guard count varies by agent — match investment to risk.

The Protocol

(1) For each trigger, assess the cost of a false positive: what happens if the agent fires when it shouldn't? (2) Low cost (drink water, check posture, take a breath) → zero to one guard clause. Let the trigger fire freely; false positives are harmless. (3) Medium cost (start a conversation, switch tasks, send a message) → one guard clause. A quick context check before action. (4) High cost (send difficult email, make irreversible commitment, confront a conflict) → two to three guard clauses. Multiple context checks ensuring the timing, audience, and situation are right. (5) Never add more guards than the cost justifies. The deliberation overhead of each guard clause is a real cost — it must be less than the expected cost of the false positives it prevents.