For agent rebuilds
Use this when version 1 looked promising but did not survive real operations: tool failures, retry loops, unclear recovery, cost spikes, brittle handoffs, or work that still depends on hidden human decisions.
V1 failed in production
You need to know whether the failure came from the model, the workflow, the tools, the data path, or the surrounding operating environment.
V2 needs a map
The output is a failure map, not a generic recommendation: recovery points, external checks, handoff risks, and the next action that is safe to take.
Human gates stay explicit
High-impact decisions should escalate early. A circuit breaker is not a weakness; it is how an agent system becomes trustworthy enough to run.
What gets checked
A trace can look clean while the route is dead, unsafe, unpaid, or built on repeated weak signals. The review checks not only local execution, but also the files, configs, documents, and machine-readable layers that can silently change agent behavior.
False Autonomy
When a process looks autonomous but actually depends on hidden manual decisions, assumptions, or unverifiable steps.
Route Risk
Whether the market, task, buyer, payment path, and route to a real result are viable.
Coordination Failure
Where subagents duplicate work, amplify weak signals, or converge on an internal consensus that reality does not confirm.
Input / Output / Constraints
The review works like a compact diagnostic interface: send the artifact, receive a structured failure map, keep unsafe or confidential material out of scope.
Input
An agent-generated plan, workflow, trace, market route, architecture sketch, multi-agent role setup, or self-modifying system snapshot that you want to test before execution.
Output
A failure map with a verdict, missing evidence, hidden constraints, route risks, and the next action that is safe to take.
Constraints
No confidential data. No legal, financial, or security advice. No public naming unless explicitly allowed. No guarantees.
Packages
Choose the smallest tier that matches the decision you need to make now.
Agent Output Red-Team
One-page teardown of an agent-generated plan, workflow, trace, or result.
Corrected Action Plan
Teardown plus a corrected next step with explicit evidence and control points.
Agentic SLAM Audit
Workflow topology with inter-agent boundaries, handoff failure matrix, metric degradation matrix, control metric gaps, and route continuity map.
Base prices are for initial validation. Full control-plane and benchmark work is scoped separately.
Who this is for
Best fit is a team or builder with an agent workflow that looks plausible but has not been proven against real acceptance, payment, or delivery conditions.
I have an agent-generated plan
You want to know whether it preserves the real constraints: budget, time, buyer, route, autonomy, and evidence.
I have an agent workflow
You want to find hidden human decisions, unclear acceptance criteria, weak routes, and coordination failure.
I want to test an agent route to a paid outcome
You need to know whether the route can survive payment, acceptance, delivery, and platform gates before you scale it.
Proof library
The first public sample is live. It shows the expected shape of the EUR 99 tier: verdict, what is sound, failure modes, repair, and next allowed action. Additional public or anonymized examples are being added as real submissions are cleared for publication.
Paid review loop: open, invoice-based, first paid cases pending publication permission.
Example verdict: DOWNGRADE
The plan is directionally interesting, but not execution-ready. It sounds autonomous while hiding live-world gates: account actions, payment route, acceptance criteria, and operator dependency.
Before
Agent plan says: "Use marketplace X to earn with automated task completion."
The route sounds compact and plausible, but it does not show who accepts the work, how payment is released, or where human approval still hides.
After
Failure map: payment gate missing, account review unknown, delivery acceptance undefined, operator dependency hidden.
Allowed next action: validate one live route manually with no automation, no credentials, and no payment claim until the gate sequence is confirmed.
False Consensus
Unguided multi-agent debate can collapse into agreement without external verification.
Payment Gates
Agent earnings routes still depend on setup, acceptance, escrow release, and payout gates.
Schema Drift
Browser agents fail when page structure is treated as a stable contract.
Live Credentials
Production-impacting credentials can turn a small agent mistake into a business incident.
New reviewed cases: Instruction surface risk in customer-agent guidance and production claim density versus visible control density.
FAQ
Short answers before you send a teardown candidate. Keep the artifact sanitized and concrete; the review works best when the route, buyer, evidence, and required approvals are visible.
What do I send?
A non-confidential agent plan, workflow, trace, route, or role setup. The useful input is the artifact plus the target buyer, constraints, payment or delivery path, and available evidence.
What do I get back?
A verdict, missing evidence, hidden constraints, route risks, coordination risks, and the next action that is safe to take.
Is the service live for paid work?
The domain and diagnostic interface are active. This is an active diagnostic desk with evidence-gated reviews and a public proof library. Paid reviews are accepted by invoice on request after intake approval; there is no self-serve checkout. After submission, send or confirm the draft email to hello@agentrebuildaudit.com to request the invoice.
Can I send confidential data?
No. Send sanitized material only. The review is diagnostic and does not provide legal, financial, medical, or security advice.
Sanitized submission templates
If your original material is proprietary, rewrite it into one of these public-safe skeletons. Remove names, IDs, internal links, credentials, and branded method labels. Keep the stages, roles, gates, evidence, and success or failure criteria.
Using a template reduces friction. It does not guarantee that a review request will be accepted.
Agent-generated plan
Use this when you have a generated plan, strategy note, or architecture sketch that still contains proprietary method names or internal identifiers.
Remove: branded methodology names, internal stage IDs, private product names, repository paths, and internal URLs.
Keep: the objective, planned stages, decision points, approvals, evidence, and what counts as success or failure.
Agent workflow
Use this when the main artifact is a role flow, handoff chain, trace summary, or orchestration setup with private role names or tool aliases.
Remove: custom agent names, tool aliases, private connectors, queue names, internal endpoints, and account references.
Keep: generic roles, handoffs, checks, approvals, recovery points, and the route breakpoints where the flow can fail.
Route to a paid outcome
Use this when the sensitive part is the route itself: buyer acquisition, delivery, acceptance, payout, or marketplace operations.
Remove: platform-specific tactics, account names, listing IDs, private dashboards, payout details, and credentials.
Keep: the buyer type, route stages, payment and acceptance gates, evidence already available, and the exact point where the route becomes uncertain.
Submit a public teardown candidate
Selected public or anonymized teardowns are used to expand the proof library. Paid reviews are handled by invoice on request after intake approval. Send one agent-generated plan or workflow you do not fully trust and get a short diagnostic map if it fits the current review queue.
Best fit
Agent-generated business plans, automation workflows, agent marketplace routes, multi-agent role setups, and self-modifying systems where the main question is whether the route survives contact with reality. Especially where you suspect the agent is skipping real-world gates: accounts, payments, approvals, or SLAs.