Interactive prototype

Is this workflow ready for agent support?

Tick only what you can defend in front of the people who operate, audit, or live with the result. This is a conversation tool, not a certification and definitely not an excuse to automate first and apologise later.

The workflow is boundedInputs, outputs, normal steps, and exceptions are described clearly enough for another person to challenge them. The decision is namedThe team can explain what decision changes when the agent produces an output. A human owner is namedSomeone can approve, reject, stop, or override the workflow and is accountable for the outcome. The data is usableAvailability, quality, timing, ownership, and relevant gaps are visible rather than assumed. Failure is visibleThe team knows how wrong, missing, late, or contradictory output will be detected. A safe fallback existsThe process can continue, pause, or return to manual work without hiding the failure. Actions are traceableInputs, changes, approvals, tool calls, and outputs leave evidence suitable for review. The people affected were involvedOperators, planners, quality owners, or customer-facing teams helped define the boundaries and exceptions.

0/8

Start with the workflow, not the agent.

No box ticked yet. That is honest, and honesty is a better starting point than a confident demo.

Explore 16 operational cases

This browser-only prototype stores no data and sends nothing anywhere. It is based on Frank Kienle's public AI-in-operations readiness principles.