Finds why you cannot tell whether last week's prompt change made it worse
Every vendor in this space sells one layer. Nobody reviews the whole, and the piece missing is nearly always the same: a team changes a prompt on Tuesday and has no way of knowing whether Tuesday was better than Monday. Quality is measured by whoever complains loudest.
This agent reviews an AI feature the way an engineer would before letting it near customers. It works from your own description of what you built — the model, the retrieval, the tools, what it can write to, what happens when it fails — and reports what is absent at each layer, ranked by what it costs you when it bites.
It looks hardest at the five gaps that are common, quiet and expensive: no eval set, so nobody can tell a regression from a bad day; no cost attribution, so a feature's bill is invisible until the invoice; retries and steps without a ceiling, so one loop becomes a four-figure afternoon; personal data crossing a provider boundary nobody mapped; and an agent that writes somewhere with no human gate. It recommends no vendor, because the finding is almost never which tool you picked.
The single change that makes every later change measurable.
Unbounded loops are cheap to fix and expensive to discover.
Because the data boundary is written down.
The gap almost every team has. Without one, a prompt change is shipped blind and quality is whoever complains loudest.
Per feature and per run. A bill that only arrives monthly is a bill nobody can act on.
Retries, steps and tool calls with no ceiling. One loop is a four-figure afternoon.
What leaves your systems and reaches a model provider. Most teams have never written this down, and it is the first thing an enterprise buyer asks.
Anything that sends, spends or changes something outside your system, and who approves it.
Every tool in this market sells its own layer. The finding is almost never which one you picked, and naming a product would be selling rather than reviewing.
Why Software & Engineering in particular. Every vendor sells one layer and none reviews the whole. What is missing is nearly always the eval set — so a team changes a prompt on Tuesday and cannot tell whether Tuesday was better than Monday.
Runs unattended
Started by you or by an event, and it finishes on its own. Nothing waits for someone to be at a desk.
The same standard every time
The two-hundredth item is held to the bar the first one was. Consistency is the part people cannot sustain.
It cannot act on its own
AI Stack Readiness Agent has no path to sending, spending or committing. That limit is why its output is safe to act on.
This agent runs server-side through the PROMIVO runtime. Each run is logged step by step and every tool call is permission-checked before it executes.
Read-only by design. This agent has no path to sending, spending, publishing or committing anything. Where that limit is the product, removing it would remove the reason to trust the output.
Demo dataIllustrative sample output, abridged.
{
"feature": "Support reply assistant",
"description": "…",
"inProduction": true
}{
"escalate": true,
"findings": [
{
"gap": "No eval set.",
"costsYou": "You changed the prompt twice last month and cannot say whether either change helped. Quality is currently whoever complains loudest.",
"severity": "ships-blind",
"closingItRequires": "Thirty real inputs with the answer you would accept, run on every prompt change. Thirty is enough to catch a regression; it does not need to be a platform."
},
{
"gap": "Retries have no ceiling.",
"costsYou": "A provider timeout retries until it succeeds. One bad afternoon is an unbounded bill, and nothing in the description stops it.",
"severity": "expensive",
"closingItRequires": "A retry limit and a timeout below your platform's own request limit."
}
],
"disclaimer": "A review of the feature as you described it. Not a security assessment, not a compliance opinion, and not a statement that anything is production-ready.",
"dataBoundary": [
{
"data": "Customer message text, including any personal detail they typed",
"leavesTo": "Model provider",
"documented": false
}
],
"unboundedWork": [
"Retries on provider error",
"No cap on tool calls per run"
],
"couldNotAssess": [
"Cost per run — no pricing or volume supplied."
],
"escalationReason": "A feature serving customers has no eval set, and customer text crosses a provider boundary that is not documented.",
"unattendedActions": []
}No integrations required.
What is missing while adding it is still cheap.
Whether anything would have caught it, and what to add.
Where the spend goes and what has no ceiling.
The questions a buyer will ask, answered before they ask.
$349/month
Billed monthly through your PROMIVO subscription. Cancel at any time.
Runs consume your plan allowance for agent executions and tokens. See plan limits.
No. Every vendor here sells one layer and the finding is almost never which one you chose. It names the gap and what closing it requires, and leaves the choice where it belongs.
It works from your description of the feature — model, retrieval, tools, limits, failure behaviour. A description you can write in ten minutes surfaces the same gaps, because these are architectural rather than hidden in a function.
No. It reports where data crosses a provider boundary and where a write has no gate, which is what an enterprise buyer asks about. A security assessment is a separate engagement with a different signature on it.
No reviews yet. Reviews open once customers have run this agent.
Tell us what to change and our team will scope a customised version for your business.
Customize this agent