Workflow qualification

Bring one workflow. Leave with a go/no-go answer.

We qualify the exact application, environment, identities, effects, failure cases, and deployment boundary.

Qualification means we test your workflow against real failures before it runs.

Why are you here?

Why are you here? *

You and the application

Name *Work email *Company *Role *Application *Application versionExecution environment *Expected data sensitivity *Which best describes you *

One exact workflow

Describe the business steps, not real customer or patient data. Do not paste screenshots, credentials, record identifiers, or sensitive values.

What should happen from input to verified result? *

Monthly executions *Manual minutes per execution *Operators doing this work *Cost of a wrong action *Input structure *Workflow stability *

Integration and proof

Practical write API *Strongest available result verifier *Test environment *Reuse potential *Deployment restrictions

Ownership and timing

Named economic buyerBuyer involvement *Desired timeline *Qualification budget *

I consent to OpenAdapt processing the details above to review this workflow and respond, as described in the Privacy Notice. *

This intake is for scope only. Do not submit credentials, screenshots, recordings, PHI, PII, or customer records.

The full fit checklist

What makes a first workflow a strong candidate

Use OpenAdapt when the write only happens on the screen, a wrong one costs, and you already know the job. Those three are hard. Fail one and pick another tool.

The last two are for a production Seal and for whether qualification pays back. You can start locally without them.

Hard gates

If these fail, use something else.

No practical write API for the last mile.
If a supported API exposes the operation, use it. It is faster, cheaper, and easier to test than any GUI. OpenAdapt is for the work that only happens through the screen: a legacy desktop or Citrix app with no API, an API that does not cover these fields, or an API licensing or IT will not give you. Verification is separate: it may read the record back through an API, a database, a file, a second session, or the UI.
A wrong action has operational, financial, or compliance cost.
Verification, refusal, and evidence are what OpenAdapt charges for. Where a wrong write costs nothing, a cheaper tool wins.
You already know the transaction.
The compiled program takes named parameters you already have, or that an agent extracts from a document before Execute. New values every run is the point. If the intent itself changes every run, a new kind of job rather than new field values, there is no program to compile. A computer-use agent can re-plan that.

For a Seal, and for qualification cost

You can start locally without these. The independent record check is required before we sign VERIFIED.

Independent check of the stored record.
Required for a production Seal. Optional to start locally.
The check can run through an API, a database, a file, a second session, or the UI. What matters is that it reads the stored record rather than the page that claimed success. Without one, a run can only be reported unproven. HALTED and unsigned runs stay $0. There is no production Seal.
It repeats enough that qualification is worth it.
Qualification is a fixed cost per workflow version. Daily work repays it. A handful of times a year does not. Embedders still qualify once per admitted bundle.

An agent can demonstrate. When the agent clicks, a person watches. A person still admits the compiled program. The task has to be showable on the screen from start to finish. A half-workflow that lives only in someone's head can't compile.

The write-API gate is the one people ask about most. The full answer, dimension by dimension, is on OpenAdapt compared with a supported API.