This is quite easy with adverbation as an auxiliary. The past party will have the same type of agreements as the regular French adjective. However, the rules change when the verb is reflexive (always used with being). But as soon as you start telling a story from yesterday. It`s going to be difficult. One must pay attention to more than the normal subject-verb agreement. Sometimes verbs have to match in another way. Now that you know that you are not using a verb contract with having and that you are using a verb agreement with being, there is another thing you should know. If there is a direct object that is the recipient of the action, the compliance rules are the same as for having: the passed partition corresponds to the direct object when it is placed in front of the verb and does not match when it is placed after.
The rules of the past participation agreement vary. The fundamentals are: [Who/what is washed? –> “They.” The subject is therefore the addressee of the complaint, there is a consensus.] Specifically, the overastimation of the French verb in the past. In fact, it`s surprisingly simple. There are three main types of verbs in the past tense, and each has its own rules for over-regulation of verbs. Have you seen Romain`s new bike? There is a bought one here. [“Romain`s new motorcycle” is the direct object; in the first sentence, there is no agreement according to the verb; in the second sentence, the personal pronoun “the” is the direct object and replaces “Romain`s new motorcycle”; the past “purchased” stake is therefore compliant.] [Who/what is washed?” –> “hands.” “The hands” is the direct object and is fixed according to the verb, no correspondence.] So here is past Compound with rule of having agreement: Apply rules of convention with a previous direct object nomen.