// Get info

are your agents validating acceptance criteria or hopes and dreams?

Why won’t this fail like our last attempt?

You tried this before, and it failed for a reason.

Specs nobody could implement. Agents that improvised around ambiguous requirements. No traceability from requirement to shipped code, so the postmortem had nothing to inspect.

What you want now is the control layer the first attempt was missing, and proof that it closes the failure.

Diagnose your failed attempt
  • No card required
  • No migration; one story is enough
  • No commitment past the thirty minutes
  • You leave with the failure point named, whatever you decide next

The failure cost credibility, not just time.

The demo impressed and the delivery disappointed. Every result needed a human to decide whether it counted, and the postmortem could not trace a requirement to the code that shipped.

The first attempt had no control layer.

There was no gate between the requirement and execution, and no evidence step after delivery. Improvisation stayed invisible until the deadline exposed it.

The failure points close by design.

The gate holds an objective spec before agents start; verification checks every acceptance criterion against evidence after they finish; and the chain from requirement to shipped code is inspectable at any point.

The controlled delivery path

Shape

Do we know what should be built?

A shaped requirement: intent, constraints, and acceptance criteria, written before agents start.

Gate

Is it clear, complete, buildable?

The gate holds the requirement until every criterion is objective and buildable.

Ship

Can agents execute it coherently?

Agents build against the spec; every change stays traceable to the requirement.

Verify

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

The sweep below is a real run with the control layer in place; it is the record your last attempt never had.

A requirement entered, the gate held it, agents executed it, and every task carried completion evidence before the result shipped.

Shape

Sweep the open CVE alerts, shaped into a point-in-time security sweep with grouped, per-cluster filing.

Gate

The gate held the requirement until the sweep scope and filing rules were objective.

Ship

Agents executed the sweep and filed remediation tasks per cluster.

Verify

Every task carried completion evidence; the verified result shipped with per-task costs visible.

$6.96 total for this complete run

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.

Work is traceable

A real requirement-to-criterion-to-evidence chain, shown end to end in the demonstration below.

Inspect the orchestrator
Costs stay visible

One complete multi-agent run, costed per task.

$6.96total for one complete run

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.

It works at organizational scale

Approval boundaries, permissions, audit trail, and security posture.

Security posture

Why won’t this fail the same way?

The two failure points were improvisation and untestable done. The gate closes the first by holding an objective spec before execution; verification closes the second by checking every criterion against evidence.

Do we migrate our previous work?

No. Bring one story; the diagnostic runs against your existing stack and nothing migrates.

What does the diagnostic commit us to?

Thirty minutes and one user story. No card, no migration, no commitment past the call.

The offer

Bring
one user story your agents struggled with
Receive
a diagnostic: where control broke down, how the story runs through the controlled delivery path, and a concrete rollout recommendation
Duration
thirty minutes
Commitment
one call; nothing migrates and nothing executes during it
Afterward
you leave with the failure point named and a rollout recommendation you can act on
Diagnose your failed attempt
  • No card required
  • No migration; one story is enough
  • No commitment past the thirty minutes
  • You leave with the failure point named, whatever you decide next

Bring the story your agents struggled with; it goes in the notes below.

Pricing

Priced per seat, after the evidence.

$100 per seat / month for your first 100 seats, then $70 per seat. Free tier to start.