How we compare

Why isn't this already solved?

Because the hard part was never the software. A process starts in one or two heads, then spreads across teams, tools, and exceptions until no one can see the whole thing end to end. And you can't safely change what no one fully understands. Every fix runs into the same trap:

Automation tools

The process gets buried in the wiring of six apps. When something breaks, it's archaeology.

See full comparison →

Raw AI agents

The process runs inside a black box. Impressive in a demo, unexplainable in production.

See full comparison →

Custom & vibe-coded builds

The process freezes into code nobody fully understands. Including, soon, whoever wrote it.

What changed is that AI agents can finally do both halves: run real operational work, and build the understanding of the process in the open, where your team can see it and change it.

Raw capability isn't enough. A raw agent drifts; you can't observe it, and you can't iterate on it. What makes it dependable is the scaffold around the agent: the stated process, the guardrails, and the record of every run.

We spent a decade building work management and AI products. Building that scaffold is what we do.

Explore Malleable
Demo: a four-stage purchase-approval workflow — read the request, submit it, and route anything over the auto-approve limit to a person for approval, with an auto-reject branch.
agent log · live
Reading purchase request · alex@acme.com
Pulled team Slack · checked spend policy · cross-referenced budget
Logging to request tracker · row 47automatic
Over auto-approve limit — ask @eric to approve?
Routed to @eric for approval · request marked pending

Every stage carries its own guardrails: the outcome, the required actions, the allowed apps, and where the agent can use judgment.