AI AGENT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

Useful agents start with a well-defined job.

I build agents for research, document processing and content operations. Each has a specific task, access to the right tools, and a clear point to ask a person for help.

Free introductory call.
A $1,500 diagnostic, credited toward a fixed-price build.

EXAMPLE: A CAMPAIGN WORKFLOW
01

Understand the brief

Use the brand’s inputs and relevant research.

02

Prepare the content

Draft the copy and produce the visual assets.

03

Get approval

Send images for review and use the feedback for revisions.

04

Schedule approved assets

Hand the accepted campaign to the publishing tool.

BASED ON THE CAMPAIGN CASE STUDY
Work directly with HeshamAn agreed scope and fixed priceCode and infrastructure you own

START WITH THE TASK

Where an agent can help.

The useful question is which part of your process needs flexible judgement, and how you will know the result is acceptable.

RESEARCH & CONTENT

Turn a brief into a reviewable draft.

Retrieve relevant material, structure a response and prepare it for your publishing process.

  • Source retrieval and reference handling
  • Brand and output-format requirements
  • Editorial approval and exception handling

DOCUMENT OPERATIONS

Turn incoming documents into useful records.

Extract fields, classify documents and route the result into the tools your team already uses.

  • Defined schemas and validation
  • Ambiguous or incomplete records sent for review
  • A traceable link to the original document

CHOOSE THE RIGHT APPROACH

Where an agent won’t help.

An agent is useful when a task needs flexible judgement. Other work benefits from a simpler, more predictable approach.

The result must be exact

Totals, eligibility rules and other defined calculations need reproducible logic. A language model should not be the authority for the answer.

Better fit: Use SQL, ordinary code or a rules-based workflow, with validation and review of exceptions.

The steps are already known

A fixed sequence of actions gains little from an agent choosing the same path repeatedly.

Better fit: Use a scheduled or event-driven workflow with explicit branches, retries and error handling.

The underlying data is missing

An agent cannot reliably supply facts that the business does not have or resolve unclear ownership of records.

Better fit: Clarify the process, improve the source data and add validation before automating decisions.

The action needs authorisation

A consequential action should not happen just because a model proposes it.

Better fit: Use authenticated approval steps and constrained actions. Let the agent prepare the recommendation or supporting material.

Success has not been defined

If the team cannot describe an acceptable result, there is no sound basis for evaluating an autonomous system.

Better fit: Run a manual pilot, collect representative examples and agree acceptance criteria first.

The task is too occasional to justify it

A low-volume task may cost less to handle directly than to build and maintain an agent around it.

Better fit: Use a checklist, template or small utility, and revisit automation when the repeated work warrants it.

A SYSTEM YOU CAN INSPECT

From a brand brief to a scheduled campaign.

This n8n case study connects research, platform-specific copy, generated images and scheduling. Images go to Slack for approval; rejected images are revised using the reviewer’s feedback. It shows where a person participates in a concrete workflow.

Read the full case study
63-NODE CAMPAIGN ENGINE
01

Input

A brand brief and the campaign requirements.

02

Work

Research, platform-specific drafts and images.

03

Review

Image approval and feedback in Slack.

04

Output

Approved assets stored and scheduled through Late.

THE APPROVAL POINT IS VISIBLE IN THE DESIGN

BEFORE IT GOES LIVE

Agree what a good result looks like.

An agent needs acceptance criteria, failure examples and an operating plan, alongside the prompt.

EVALUATION

Test the cases that matter.

Use representative inputs, known answers where available, and examples of incomplete or misleading inputs.

  • Assess the result against task-specific criteria
  • Review tool selection and action permissions
  • Measure response time and cost on the sample workload

HANDOVER

Make uncertainty visible.

Give the team a way to inspect decisions, review exceptions and adjust the workflow.

  • Approval points for consequential actions
  • A fallback when a tool or model fails
  • Versioned changes and a route to re-evaluate them

WORKING TOGETHER

Define the job before building the agent.

The free call is an introduction. The diagnostic is the paid engagement that defines the build.

01 / DIAGNOSTIC

Find the right first build.

Identify the task, tools, data access and approval points. Agree the evaluation cases and a fixed-price implementation scope.

$1,500Credited toward the build

03 / ONGOING SUPPORT

Keep a named person involved.

Optional monitoring, fixes and improvements from the person who built the system. The support scope is agreed separately.

Scoped to your systemOptional after launch

GO DEEPER

Read the patterns behind the agent.

Explore the Claude workbook, or examine a document-processing workflow that extracts financial records and makes them queryable.

FAQ

Questions, answered

Straight answers on cost, ownership and what happens after launch.

What does a project cost?
Who actually does the work?
What happens after launch?
How fast can we start?
Do you build on n8n specifically?
Can you migrate us from Zapier or Make?
Cloud n8n or self-hosted?
When does a build need Cloudflare instead of n8n?
Do I own what you build?
Where are you based?
Are you insured, and will you sign an NDA?
How can I check your credentials without marketplace reviews?

Which task is taking more judgement than it should?

Bring a representative input and an example of the output your team needs.