Find out where AI agents are safe to run your business — before one silently breaks it.
Everyone's being told to "add AI." Almost nobody's being told the truth: an AI agent doesn't fail like software. It fails like a confident intern who says the job's done when it isn't. Handed the wrong workflow, it won't error out — it'll quietly produce wrong work and report success, and you won't find out until it costs you.
The Agent Readiness Audit tells you exactly which of your workflows an agent can run today, which will burn you, and what to fix first. In two weeks. Before you spend a dollar on tooling.
Book the Audit →What you get
A workflow-by-workflow readiness map. Five things decide whether an agent can safely run it.
Can the process even be written down — or does it live in one person's head? Agents automate descriptions of work. No description, no agent.
Are the judgment calls encoded as rules, or left fuzzy? Every "it depends" is a place the agent guesses — and guesses confidently.
Is there an automatic way to check the work was done right? If the only check is "a customer eventually complains," the agent will fail silently for weeks.
If the agent gets it wrong, what does undo cost? Cheap undo → automate freely. Expensive undo → a human stays in the loop. No exceptions.
Does a named human own the output, and can the agent earn trust gradually — the way you'd onboard a new hire, not hand them the keys on day one?
Every candidate workflow gets scored and sorted into one of three buckets:
Safe to automate now
Green-lit. Hand it to an agent this quarter.
Fixable first
Close a specific gap, then automate. The fix-list tells you which.
Do not automate
An agent will hurt you here. Better to know before, not after.
Plus a ranked fix-list — the shortest path to move the "fixable" workflows into "safe."
Why me
I'm not selling you a framework I read about. I've hit every one of these failure modes myself.
I build and operate a local-first AI agent system on my own hardware — not a demo, a system that runs real workflows every day. I've had agents lie about finishing work, changes I couldn't cleanly undo, automations that quietly cost more than they saved. The gates, checks, and rollback that catch those failures are running in my own operation right now. The Audit is that hard-won judgment, pointed at your workflows instead of mine.
See one finished
Don't take the method on faith. I ran it on myself and published everything.
Five workflows I operate every day, scored against these exact five gates and published unedited — including the one that scored 4 out of 10, which I ran unattended anyway, and what that cost me. It is the same document you would get, run at full depth.
10
Safe now
9
Safe now
6
Fixable first
5
Fixable first
4
Do not automate
After the audit
Want it built, not just mapped? The Audit is step one.
If you want the top-ranked workflow's gates, verification, and rollback built alongside your team, that's the Operator Stack. But start with the map — most people should. The Audit tells you what to build before anyone spends a dollar building it.
Before you ask
What decides $5K versus $15K?
Count and depth. A handful of workflows inside one team, where the process is already written down somewhere, sits at the low end. Multiple teams, workflows that cross system boundaries, or processes nobody has ever documented sit at the high end — because most of that work is reconstructing what the process actually is before it can be scored at all. You get one fixed number before we start, and it does not move.
What if the answer is “don’t automate any of it”?
Then the Audit did its job, and you found out in two weeks instead of after a year and a budget. I would rather hand you three do-not-automate verdicts you can defend to a board than a green light I cannot stand behind. That is a real possible outcome and I will say it plainly if it is what I find.
Do you need access to our systems?
No. The Audit runs on descriptions of how the work moves — who owns it, what checking it looks like today, what undo costs when it goes wrong. No credentials, no production access, nothing of yours leaves your side. If a workflow cannot be described clearly enough to score, that is finding number one.
We already pay for Copilot and ChatGPT Enterprise. Why this?
Those are the tools. This is the question of which work you can safely point them at. Buying a capable model tells you nothing about which of your processes will fail silently when something confident runs them unsupervised — and silent failure is the one that actually costs money.
What do I need to have ready?
A list of candidate workflows, and one person per workflow who genuinely knows how it runs. That is it. You do not need documentation — the absence of it is a finding, not a blocker.
The week-one stop
If it isn't worth finishing, I'll say so and stop.
Week one is a checkpoint, not a commitment. If by the end of it I don't believe the full Audit will earn its fee — because the workflows are simpler than you thought, or because the real problem turns out not to be an AI problem at all — I tell you, we stop, and you pay for week one only.
I would rather walk away from half an engagement than put my name on a map that wasn't worth making.
Book the Audit
Tell me which workflow you're thinking of handing to an agent.
Honest proof: this is a new offer, so I don't have a wall of client logos — I have a method I run on my own system every day. The more concrete you are about the workflow and the outcome you'd measure, the faster I can tell you whether an Audit is worth your money.
Still deciding? Read the finished Audit before you write anything here.