We build AI task agents around your workflow
Every agency works differently, so every build is different. We map the steps your team repeats, connect the agent to the tools you already pay for, and let it do the mechanical parts. The judgment stays with your people.
Written reply in one business day. If it fits, a 20 minute call. No deck.
Agents
Five worth writing this week. Ranked by effort against return.
Sources — Search Console, 7–13 Aug · Ahrefs
You ask. It works across your tools. You approve.
Illustrative example. One request, start to finish. Your agent, your tools, your approval. Product names are trademarks of their owners.
Your best people spend the day on “busywork”
Not the work they were hired for. They have become the wiring between tools that do not talk to each other.
We exist to free agency people from operational busywork, so they can enjoy the work they signed up for.
Published 2026 marketing operations and workplace automation research. Describes the market, not your agency.
Three things are different afterwards
It arrives finished
Numbers pulled. Sources linked. Your people read and decide, instead of building.
The hours move to thinking
Same people, same week, spent on the part that needs experience.
You can say do it again
No rework round. No half a day gone. Say redo it with this changed, and it does.
When redoing costs nothing, the standard goes up instead of down.
How we build it around you
Anyone can say the word custom. This is what it means in practice, and what you hold at the end of each step.
The evaluation set is the part most builds skip. It is the only reason we can promise anything.
We watch how work really moves, and collect twenty real past examples.
You get: a map of your processEvery capability sorted into must have or good to have, each with a written test.
You get: a signed specLeast privilege access, with a map of what it reads, writes and never touches.
You get: a data access mapRun against those twenty examples, compared to what your team actually produced.
You get: an evaluation setIt lives inside the tools you already pay for
This is the difference between an agent and a chatbot. It does not wait for someone to paste things into it. It has permission to go and get what it needs, and put the result back.
WORKFLOW
AGENT
Ready for your review
Illustrative. Connections are agreed in the audit before any access is granted.
Four agencies, four completely different builds
Green is the agent. Amber is the call only a person should make.
SEO agency
Monthly retainer cycle
Creative agency
Project, brief to handoff
Paid media agency
Campaign cycle
PR agency
Campaign
This is not a menu. Yours will look like none of them, because it gets built from your steps.
What always stays with your people
We did not invent this line. Research puts it where we do: machines review, summarise, flag and prepare. People stay required wherever there is money, legal risk or strategy.
Gets what the job needs from the tools in scope.
Against the brief, the scope and the last call.
Produces it with a source on every claim.
Reads it, changes it, or says do it again. Nothing passes alone.
Goes out, gets logged, cycle time measured.
Not enough evidence, a scope conflict, a pricing question. It stops, says why, and routes to the named owner. It does not guess to keep things moving.
Approval first. Autonomy earned.
Everyone else sells you a teammate on day one. We start with something that cannot act at all.
Observe
Watches and measures. Changes nothing. This is your baseline.
Draft
Produces work with sources. A person decides every action.
Act on approval
Reversible steps run once approved. Unlocked by accuracy, not a date.
Bounded auto run
Narrow steps run alone, with sampling and rollback. Never the client send.
Some steps should stay gated forever. Part of what you pay for is someone telling you which.
Every must have, or all of your money back
The audit fee as well as the build fee. And we take the agent back out at no cost, so you are not left maintaining something you did not want.
Every capability marked must have in the spec you signed.
The written pass condition on each one. You test it. You sign it.
The 14 days of hypercare. Real work, not a demo.
Everything refunded, agent removed, access revoked. Free.
The price comes from your own numbers
No rate card. A build that saves four hours a week and one that saves thirty are not the same thing.
Credited to the build. Refunded too if we miss a must have.
Of one year of the wages that workflow costs you now.
A document you would be happy to forward
Most deals like this die because the person who wants it cannot make the case to the person who signs. So the audit is built to be forwarded. It is useful even if you never hire us.
Illustrative. A redacted sample of a completed workflow audit.
The audit
Map the workflow, agree the spec, write the tests, price the build.
The build
Connected to your tools, tested against your own history.
14 days hypercare
Real work, watched daily. Your window to test every must have.
You have already tried the obvious fixes
Two of these might genuinely be right for you. The audit says which.
| Zapier, Make, n8n | Fine until a step needs judgment. Then it guesses, or it stops. |
| An AI employee product | A job title is not a scope. Nobody knew what it owned, so nobody trusted it. |
| Prompting harder | No memory of your business. Every task starts by re-explaining it. |
| Hiring an ops person | The busywork got a manager. It did not get smaller. |
| Outsourcing it | Cheaper hands. Same coordination cost. New variance to check. |
| Doing nothing | Still costs you weekly. It just never lands on an invoice. |
If your workflow is simple and rule based, build it in n8n and keep your money. We will tell you so.
We built this for ourselves first
A client emails asking for a landing page. We do not open Gmail. We ask. It reads the email, opens that client's workspace, builds the page, writes the content, and shows us the diff. Then it stops and waits.
That is not a demo. That is a Tuesday.
Before this, four years at Accenture building operational systems. The people who sell the build are the people who do the build.
Who this is for, and who it is not
Headcount guides the fit. Workflow conditions decide it.
The workflow recurs weekly or monthly.
Several people touch it.
The data already lives in tools, not heads.
You can name who approves the output.
The freed time has somewhere real to go.
You want full autonomy before any baseline exists.
The workflow happens too rarely to maintain.
Nobody owns tool access or approval.
You are buying it to cut headcount.
Your operations are genuinely chaotic. Organise first.
The questions you are actually asking
Will this replace my team?
No, and we will not sell it that way. It takes the mechanical steps. Your people keep the judgment, the approval and the client relationship, which is what clients actually pay for.
If your goal is cutting headcount, we are the wrong people.
What if it gets something wrong?
It will, sometimes. That is why the first deployment drafts only, and why we build a test set from your own past work before anything goes near a client.
Every claim carries a source. Where evidence is thin it says so and escalates rather than guessing.
What happens to our client data?
We map data flows, access, retention and ownership during the audit, before anything is built. Access is least privilege and limited to the systems in scope.
It runs on infrastructure you own. Your data is never used for model training.
Why not just build it in Zapier or n8n?
Possibly you should. If the audit finds your workflow is simple and rule based, we will say so and you keep your money.
What those tools do not give you is the diagnosis, a measured baseline, a test set from your real history, the design of where the human sits, or integration that survives real clients. Prototypes are easy now. Reliability six months later is the job.
Saved time is not the same as saved money.
Correct, and it is the most important thing on this page. Freed hours only become money if they land somewhere specific: an avoided hire, sellable capacity, less rework, or senior time deliberately moved.
If the audit cannot find a real destination, it recommends no build.
What if you miss a must-have?
You get all your money back, audit included, and we remove the agent at no cost.
The must haves are written and signed before the build starts, each with its own pass condition, so there is no argument later about what counted.
Do I need to be technical?
No. You need to be available during the audit and able to authorise tool access, or name who can. No setup, no configuration, no new app for your team.
What if our tools are unusual?
Say so on the form. Whether we can connect cleanly is one of the first things the audit establishes. If we cannot, that is a no build recommendation, and you hear it early.
How is this different from a company brain?
A brain is the knowledge layer, it makes your context askable. A workflow agent uses that layer to actually do a recurring job end to end, with approval gates and a measured outcome.
The brain knows things. The agent does things.
Tell us which workflow is the problem
Six questions, about two minutes. Written reply within one business day, either times for a call or a straight no with the reason.
Talk to the Workflow GPT. It will tell you which of your workflows is worth automating, and sometimes it tells you not to hire us.
Get one boring task killed in your inbox, every Wednesday.
One real task I've ended for an agency owner: the task, the tool, and the steps. No repo, no terminal, no learning to code. You can copy 99% of them yourself.
Free. One email a week. I'll send a confirmation link to click. Unsubscribe any time.
That didn't go through. Please try again.