Most teams lose more time to routine coordination than to any single hard problem: re-keying data between tools, sorting and routing inbound requests, drafting the same kinds of documents, reconciling records, chasing the next step. Individually each is minor. In aggregate they are where the afternoons go.
Workflow automation reclaims that time. We build multi-step automations with real reasoning baked in — not brittle if-this-then-that rules that break the first time reality deviates from the happy path — wired into the tools you already run.
How we engage
- Retainer
- $10,000 upfront
- Then
- $220 / hour
- Plus
- API usage and any cost associated with the work is billed through. We do not mark it up as a surprise line — it is named in the proposal.
- Horizon
- 4–6months, on average
- Keeping$2,000 / month
- ContinuityIncludes Keeping$4,500 / month
- PresenceIncludes Continuity$8,500 / month
- MandateIncludes Presence$12,000 / month
Automate the high-volume, low-judgment work first
The best candidates share three traits: they happen often, they follow rules you can actually state, and a mistake is cheap to catch. Routing inbound email, drafting first-pass replies, pulling data from documents into a system, reconciling records between two tools, generating routine reports — this is where automation quietly compounds.
We deliberately leave the rare, high-stakes, judgment-heavy decisions to people. Automating those to save a few minutes trades a small gain for a large tail risk, and we will tell you when that is the trade you are about to make.
Reasoning, not just rules
Classic automation shatters on the first unexpected input. By putting a reasoning layer inside the workflow, an automation can handle the messy middle — an email that doesn't fit a template, a document in an unusual format, an edge case the rules never anticipated — and escalate cleanly when it genuinely should not proceed.
That is the difference between an automation your team trusts and one they quietly stop relying on after it mangles the third exception.
Keep a human in the loop where it counts
The most durable pattern for a business is agent-in-the-loop: the automation does the heavy lifting — gathers, drafts, proposes — and a person approves before anything with consequences goes out. You capture most of the time saving while keeping a checkpoint on the small fraction of cases the system gets wrong. Full autonomy is something a workflow earns after it has run supervised long enough to trust.
Measured against hours you can actually name
We start by measuring the task — how often it happens, how long it takes — because if you cannot name the hours a workflow saves, you cannot tell whether automating it was worth it. Then we ship one workflow, prove it in production, and widen from there. A working example your team points to does more to build trust than any amount of strategy deck.