You proved it works. Now make it something the business can depend on.
The workflow does the job. It just cannot go live — no access control, no audit trail, no budget, keys sitting in a config file, and one person quietly keeping it alive. That gap is the entire product.
Recognise any of these?
It works, but one person babysits it.
It broke last month and nobody noticed for three days.
Security won't let us put it in front of customers.
The API keys are in a config file.
We can't tell who ran what, or what it cost.
Legal asked who reviewed the output. We didn't have an answer.
What you keep
The logic. The prompts. The steps your agentic workflow already runs, and the order it runs them in. The knowledge you assembled and the judgment about what a good answer looks like. That is the part that took the time, and the part nobody else has.
What you throw away
The scaffolding. The scheduled script, the pasted credentials, the person who checks it still ran, the spreadsheet where someone tracks what it cost.
What you stop risking
A poisoned instruction in a page your workflow reads, and it acts on someone else's orders with your credentials. A key in a config file, a repo, a screenshot. These losses are not theoretical and they are not small.
What it gains on the way in
Everything between a prototype that works and a system the business can rely on.
It does not fail silently. Defined steps, retries, a ceiling, and an explicit outcome on every run.
Something argues with the output. Automated checks, a reviewing agent, or an adversarial one built to attack the draft and find what is wrong with it — plus a person on the calls that need one, before anything goes out.
You can change it safely. Try a new version before it is live, compare versions side by side, publish a pinned version, roll back if it regresses.
The keys move out of the config file. Into a managed vault, scoped to your organisation, with rotation.
Access is decided, not assumed. Who can run it, change it, and see the output — driven from your directory, with MFA.
"Who approved this?" has an answer. Who did what, to what, when — as a record, not a memory.
It has a budget and a ceiling. What it costs, attributed, and a cap so it cannot run away unattended.
It runs itself. On a schedule, on an inbound email, from an API call, from Slack, or in bulk. Runs report live progress, and anyone watching can stop one mid-flight.
It reaches your systems properly. Real connections with real credentials, held by whoever set the connection up — never by the model. The platform decides whether an action is allowed, not the AI.
Looking things up and changing things are different rights. Read-only tools work by default. Anything that changes the outside world has to be turned on deliberately, and can require a named person to approve it before it runs.
It treats the web as hostile. Every page it fetches is screened, and every tool result is treated as information to consider — never as instructions to follow.
It can be more than one specialist. A complex workflow splits into focused agents that call each other, each with its own instructions, all billed to the same run.
How it goes
Describe it
Tell the Workflow Assistant what the thing does. It drafts the workflow — steps, tools, checks — and you correct it. Faster than rebuilding it by hand.
Wrap it
Access, identity, checks, review gates, budget, audit, connections, secrets.
Release it
Try a new version, pin it, publish. Roll back if you do not like it.
It is a migration, not a copy-paste. The logic transfers; the scaffolding gets replaced. Most of the work is deciding who is allowed to do what — which is the work you were avoiding anyway.
Show us what you built.
Bring the workflow you already run. We will tell you what it takes to make it production-grade — and what it would take to build that yourself.