Choose an agent use case when the work has an owner, varies enough to need context-sensitive steps, uses approved information, and produces an output a person can review. Keep the first job small enough to test.
Illustrative discussion placements for Northstar, not measured results.
Start with a real request
Example request: “Please check Northstar Supplies’ intake packet and tell me what is missing.” In this fictional procurement example, the reviewer needs a completeness summary, not a supplier decision. The agent may consult the submitted packet, the current vendor intake checklist, and the current vendor record. The packet lacks the current insurance certificate required by the checklist.
Before considering technology, name the basics: the trigger, user, desired result, owner, sources, and boundary. A useful target is to compare the packet with the approved references, identify evidence that is present or missing, and prepare a draft request. The procurement reviewer remains responsible for sending it and continuing the review.
Check whether an agent is the right pattern
Ask what makes the task difficult:
- Fixed and predictable: If each submission uses the same field and a fixed rule can verify it, ordinary automation may be enough.
- Variable evidence: If relevant evidence appears in varying document forms and the next step depends on interpreting what is present, an agent may be a candidate.
Limit the agent’s first actions to reading the approved materials and preparing a draft.
Choose a rule for this pilot: If every Northstar form records the insurance certificate in the same field and the checklist specifies the required value, a fixed rule can check the field and route cases with a missing value. No document interpretation is needed. Test that rule first; consider an agent when the evidence varies and needs interpretation.
For Northstar, the sample draft could be:
Northstar Supplies — intake review (draft)
Checked: Submitted packet, current vendor intake checklist, and current vendor record.
Missing: Current insurance certificate.
Draft request: “Please provide a current insurance certificate so the procurement reviewer can continue the intake review.”
Decision: Awaiting reviewer; no vendor approval or record change.
The output is a proposed handoff, not evidence that the workflow is accurate. The reviewer should be able to trace the missing item to the checklist and source packet.
Compare the candidate with clear criteria
Before a pilot, record:
- The trigger and user.
- The source owners and allowed reads and writes.
- The review point and exception path.
- The success criteria.
For this workflow, test a packet with the required certificate, one without it, one with conflicting details, and one outside the intake scope. Decide how a reviewer will judge completeness and whether the draft request is supported.
Defer the agent if there is no process owner, the checklist is unavailable or disputed, reviewers cannot define a good result, or the connected systems cannot enforce the intended access. A numeric score should not outweigh any of these gaps.
Pilot one slice and review the evidence
- Constrain the pilot. Limit it to one procurement group and the completeness check. Keep it read-only and draft-only: no supplier approval, record update, or outbound message.
- Compare the work. Compare the draft with a human review on representative packets.
- Track the evidence. Record supported findings, missed requirements, corrections, review effort, exceptions, and cost per reviewed packet. Set quality expectations before the pilot; do not claim process improvement until the measured work supports it.
After review, stop, revise, or expand based on the agreed criteria. When the workflow is ready for a job brief, use how to define a focused agent job. Compare the pattern with agent, chatbot, or automation and review the architecture guide.