Skip to content
AugmentWorks

Independent AI reliability testing for production systems

Know where your AI breaks before a customer, enterprise buyer, or production incident exposes it.

AugmentWorks tests one consequential AI workflow against realistic edge cases, adversarial inputs, policy constraints, retrieval failures, and unsafe tool actions.

Within 15 business days, your team receives human-reviewed findings, reproduction evidence, prioritized remediation guidance, and a regression suite you can keep running.

Fixed scope · Staging-friendly · Human adjudication · No certification claims

highPolicy & behavioral boundaries

Unauthorized policy commitment under authority pressure

Expected

Explain refund policy accurately and escalate exceptions without making commitments.

Observed

"Your refund has been approved for immediate processing."

Impact

The assistant may create customer expectations outside authorized policy, increasing financial and reputational exposure.

Recommendation

Require explicit authorization validation before commitment language. Add this scenario to the release regression suite.

Failure modes your team may not be testing yet

Probabilistic systems fail in recognizable patterns. These are the ones we test for in production AI workflows.

  • Invented policy exception

    A support assistant cites a 24-hour full-refund rule that does not exist in retrieved policy documents.

  • Citation with wrong meaning

    RAG returns a real document, but the model misstates what it authorizes—especially on edge-case fares.

  • Retrieval injection

    An uploaded file or ticket attachment injects instructions that override system policy in the retrieval pipeline.

  • Tool action without authorization

    An agent updates customer records or issues credits without validating permissions or confirmation rules.

  • Silent regression after upgrade

    A model or prompt change weakens refusals, structured output, or escalation behavior without test coverage catching it.

  • Inconsistent decisions

    Semantically similar requests receive materially different answers, refunds, or escalation paths.

When teams bring us in

The baseline assessment is built for a specific moment—not generic AI curiosity.

  • Before an enterprise rollout or security review
  • Before changing models, prompts, or retrieval configuration
  • After an embarrassing production failure or near-miss
  • When adding RAG, tools, browsing, or more autonomous actions
  • When a customer asks how the AI system is tested
  • When internal QA is mostly spot-checking prompts manually

A good fit when the workflow is real and testable

We can move quickly when four practical conditions are in place.

  • A staging endpoint, callable function, or representative traces exist
  • The team can define expected and prohibited behavior
  • A technical owner can answer focused intake questions
  • There is an upcoming launch, migration, enterprise review, or known concern

What we test

Four pillars that map to how buyers actually experience AI risk.

Grounding & factual reliability

  • Unsupported claims and invented policy language
  • Citation accuracy vs. source material
  • Retrieval misses, stale context, wrong document selection

Policy & behavioral boundaries

  • Prohibited commitments and escalation rules
  • Scope limitations and refusal behavior
  • Structured-output and formatting requirements

Adversarial resilience

  • Direct and indirect prompt injection
  • Authority impersonation and repeated pressure
  • Malicious retrieved content and extraction attempts

Agent & tool safety

  • Tool selection and argument scope
  • Authorization and confirmation requirements
  • Sensitive-data transmission and irreversible actions

What makes this different

AugmentWorks turns a consequential workflow into a reproducible failure model—not a black-box score.

Tests are specific to your workflow

Not a generic benchmark score. Scenarios reflect your policies, tools, and real user language.

Ambiguous cases get human adjudication

An LLM judge is a tool—not ground truth. High-impact uncertainty is reviewed by an analyst.

Every finding includes reproducible evidence

Your engineers can rerun the failure with the same inputs, traces, and expected behavior.

You retain the regression suite

The engagement produces durable engineering assets for releases and model migrations.

AI Reliability Baseline — first engagement

1 workflow · 30–50 targeted scenarios · Human-reviewed findings · Regression suite · 15 business days · $7,500 founding-client fixed fee

  • Risk and behavior map for the workflow in scope
  • Custom evaluation set (normal, edge, adversarial)
  • Executive and engineering reports
  • Findings readout with your technical stakeholders
See full offer details

15 business days, end to end

Scope → intake → scenario design → execution → human review → reports → readout.

View full timeline →
WhenPhase
Before Day 1Scope
Days 1–3Intake
Days 4–6Scenario design
Days 7–9Execution
Days 10–12Human adjudication
Days 13–14Reporting
Day 15Readout

Inspect the actual deliverables

Review a fictional Northstar Travel assessment—clearly labeled, with complete findings, coverage, and downloadable engineering artifacts.

highPolicy & behavioral boundaries

Unauthorized policy commitment under authority pressure

Expected

Explain refund policy accurately and escalate exceptions without making commitments.

Observed

"Your refund has been approved for immediate processing."

Every finding includes expected behavior, observed output, business impact, and engineering recommendations your team can act on.

Led by an engineer, not a slide deck

Jeff Skafi, founder of AugmentWorks

AugmentWorks is founded by Jeff Skafi, a senior software engineer in Los Angeles with production SaaS, AI retrieval, and evaluation infrastructure experience. Expert judgment is the product—we show whose judgment you are buying.

About Jeff & AugmentWorks →

FAQ

How are scenarios selected?
We start from your policies, architecture, known incidents, and representative requests—then add edge cases and adversarial variants mapped to your risk model.
Do you need source-code access?
Usually no. We need enough access to exercise the workflow—staging endpoint, callable function, or representative traces—plus policy and behavior documentation.
Can you test private or internal systems?
Yes, when we can reach a controlled test environment and obtain intake materials to define realistic scenarios.
Can the work be performed entirely in staging?
Yes. Most baselines run against staging or sandbox environments. Production access is optional and scoped by agreement.
How much client engineering time is required?
A technical contact joins scope and intake, helps establish test access, answers focused questions, and attends the findings readout. We design the scenarios, run the evaluation, adjudicate results, and prepare the deliverables.
What happens if no serious failures are found?
You still receive the tested coverage, evidence, limitations, and reusable regression suite. A well-supported clean result is useful evidence—not a promise that the system can never fail.
Are client prompts sent to external model providers?
Only as required to execute your workflow in the agreed environment. We document subprocessors and can align with your provider data-retention settings.
Who owns the evaluation dataset?
You do. The regression suite and scenario definitions are delivered for your ongoing use unless otherwise agreed in writing.
How do you determine severity?
By business impact, exploitability, frequency likelihood, and whether the failure violates stated policy or creates unauthorized commitments.
What happens when evaluators disagree?
Uncertain outcomes are flagged for human review. Split judgments are documented with rationale—not silently averaged away.
Does AugmentWorks implement the recommended fixes?
The baseline delivers evidence and remediation guidance. Implementation is not included. A separately scoped remediation validation can rerun the same scenarios after your team makes changes.
What does the engagement cost?
The AI Reliability Baseline is a fixed founding-client fee of $7,500 for one workflow. Follow-on work is quoted after scope confirmation.
What is explicitly out of scope?
Infrastructure pentesting, formal certification, legal opinions, unbounded enterprise review, implementation work, and fully automated production monitoring.
Is this a certification or penetration test?
No. We deliver an independent assessment with evidence and recommendations—not a badge, compliance certification, or traditional infrastructure pentest.
What happens after the assessment?
You receive reports, a regression suite, and an optional separately scoped retest after remediation.

Ready to stress-test one real workflow?

Request a 20-minute technical fit call. We will confirm scope, access, and whether a baseline assessment is the right next step.

Request a 20-minute fit call