When your agent opens a PR or spends money with no human in the loop, who's on the hook? I built a checker for that.

I build with agents, and the thing that keeps biting me has nothing to do with model quality: the moment an agent acts on its own — opens a PR, emails a customer, moves money — there's usually no written answer for who's accountable, what it was allowed to touch, or whose call wins when two roles disagree. It lives in code, scattered config, and people's heads. AgenRACI is my attempt to make that explicit and checkable. You write one YAML file (a "charter") that states, per \*type\* of action: who performs it, the single accountable owner, who's consulted/informed, the permissions it touches, the required approval, and what happens when an approver never responds (timeout + break-glass). A checker then verifies the file holds together and exits nonzero, so it runs as a CI gate or a pre-commit hook. What it catches: an action with no accountable owner, two roles both claiming accountability, a permission you granted but never use, an approval path with no timeout (silent deadlock), or an escalation chain that loops forever. Honest about scope: it \*\*writes and checks\*\* the charter — it does not intercept tool calls or enforce approvals at runtime. LangGraph/CrewAI run the agents; HumanLayer adds the human-approval step. This is the framework-independent layer above them that declares the rules, so your accountability map survives switching runtimes. There's a browser playground that runs the real checker via Pyodide (no install), plus worked examples (including an all-agent, zero-human team), and the repo governs its own development with a charter. I'd love to hear where the model breaks for your setup, especially multi-agent teams.