// Get info
Agent delivery your auditors can inspect
Can we deploy agents without creating an accountability gap?
You are asked to approve agent-driven delivery, and the evidence does not exist yet.
The security review wants to know what the agents actually did. The procurement review wants per-seat economics at scale. The architecture review wants the approval trail for the change. Each question is reasonable; together they describe a paper trail nobody has built.
What you want is specific: a delivery process where agent work is shaped, gated, executed, and verified with evidence a reviewer can walk without your team in the room.
- No credit card required
- No migration: your repositories, agents, and tools keep working
- Nothing executes during the design session
- Thirty minutes, once; no follow-up sequence
- You leave with a rollout map even if you never convert
Unverified agent work is a cost that compounds.
Every agent result gets manually re-verified before anyone trusts it, so the review tax grows with each seat and each workflow you hand to agents.
The audit exposure compounds with it: the longer agent-driven changes ship without traceable approval and evidence, the larger the record a future audit or incident review has to reconstruct.
The gap opened where requirements met execution.
Ambiguous requirements reached execution: intent arrived as a prompt or a ticket, agents improvised around it, and done had no objective definition anyone could test.
With nothing objective to verify against, every result needed a human to decide whether it counted. That decision is the accountability gap, and it repeats for every task.
The operating model flips the review burden.
Improvising agents become agents building against approved specifications. Human inspection of everything becomes criteria validated with evidence. Cost discovered on the invoice becomes cost visible per task and per run. More supervision becomes more delivery capacity.
The controlled delivery path
Do we know what should be built?
A shaped requirement: intent, constraints, and acceptance criteria, written before agents start.
Is it clear, complete, buildable?
The gate holds the requirement until every criterion is objective and buildable.
Can agents execute it coherently?
Agents build against the spec; every change stays traceable to the requirement.
Did the result meet every criterion?
Criterion-by-criterion evidence validates the result before it ships.
One story, end to end: the September security sweep
This is the evidence shape your reviewers would see: a requirement, a gate decision, an execution record, and a verified outcome, from one real September run.
A requirement entered, the gate held it, agents executed it, and every task carried completion evidence before the result shipped.
Sweep the open CVE alerts, shaped into a point-in-time security sweep with grouped, per-cluster filing.
The gate held the requirement until the sweep scope and filing rules were objective.
Agents executed the sweep and filed remediation tasks per cluster.
Every task carried completion evidence; the verified result shipped with per-task costs visible.
one point-in-time security sweep: 24 remediation tasks filed and completed by agents; per-task costs $0.09 to $1.50, average $0.29; September 2026
Outcome: 24 vulnerabilities remediated; 24 of 24 remediation tasks completed. Source: driftless platform usage data, September 2026
Single point-in-time sweep; excludes remediation work beyond the 24 filed tasks. Duration and human-involvement figures are not verified and are not shown.
One complete multi-agent run, costed per task.
one point-in-time security sweep: 24 remediation tasks filed and completed by agents; per-task costs $0.09 to $1.50, average $0.29; September 2026
Outcome: 24 vulnerabilities remediated; 24 of 24 remediation tasks completed.. Period: September 2026. Source: driftless platform usage data, September 2026
Remediation work beyond the filed tasks. Duration and human-involvement figures are not verified and are not shown.
Approval boundaries, permissions, audit trail, and security posture.
Security postureA real requirement-to-criterion-to-evidence chain, shown end to end in the demonstration below.
Inspect the orchestratorDo we have to migrate our repositories or tooling?
No migration. driftless runs against your repositories and tools as they are.
Who approves what agents do?
Approval boundaries are part of the delivery path: shaped requirements pass a gate before agents execute, and every criterion is validated with evidence.
What does oversight cost us at scale?
Seat pricing is at the close of this page. Approval boundaries and evidence requirements reduce the re-verification work your teams do today.
The offer
- Bring
- one production workflow your reviewers already ask about
- Receive
- a mapped controlled rollout: approval boundaries, evidence requirements, integration points, and projected seat and agent costs
- Duration
- a scoped rollout-design session
- Commitment
- thirty minutes with your delivery lead; nothing migrates and nothing executes during the session
- Afterward
- you leave with the rollout map and the evidence requirements your reviewers will ask for, whether or not you continue
- No credit card required
- No migration: your repositories, agents, and tools keep working
- Nothing executes during the design session
- Thirty minutes, once; no follow-up sequence
- You leave with a rollout map even if you never convert
Bring the workflow that worries your reviewers; the notes field is the place to start.
Something went wrong. Please try again or email us at sales@godriftless.ai.
Pricing
Seat pricing, after the evidence. Your reviewers see the same numbers we do.
$100 per seat / month for your first 100 seats, then $70 per seat. Free tier to start.