AgentDesk audit viewer

Evidence that a three-agent pipeline can be governed so it cannot ship a confident lie.

What am I looking at?

AgentDesk turns a company name into a researched outreach email using three separate AI agents — but the point of this project isn't the emails. It's that the pipeline is governed so it structurally cannot ship a claim nobody can back up.

Researcher Haiku web search · read-only
Drafter Sonnet no internet access
QA Reviewer Opus different model family · can't edit
Five checkpoints stand between a company name and a human inbox — only one is a model:
  1. Prompt contract — each agent's rules of engagement
  2. Schema validation — malformed output is rejected, never retried
  3. Deterministic checks — word count, banned phrases, every claim traced to a source
  4. Adversarial review — the one model judgment call, scored against the brief
  5. Release decision — recomputed in code; the reviewer's own verdict is advisory
ESCALATED and HALTED are success states, not errors. If research comes up thin, the pipeline refuses to draft rather than invent facts — that's a halt. If the reviewer keeps blocking a draft after the retry budget runs out, the system routes it to a human instead of quietly lowering the bar — that's an escalation. Both mean a gate did its job.

Quality gate, measured honestly: on a small 14-case mutation harness, deterministic code alone catches 10 of 14 bad drafts at zero false positives. The remaining four need a model's judgment call to catch, and that measurement hasn't been run yet — stated here as a limitation, not rounded up.