← Reynforce · as markdown

AI agent guardrails for sales

Guardrails on wording stop an agent being rude or going off-topic. They do not stop it committing your company to a date, a discount or a capability nobody approved. Those are two different problems, and the second one needs a source of truth rather than a classifier.

A guardrail asks is this output acceptable. A commitment check asks is this true, who says so, and may this agent say it — and the second question cannot be answered from the text alone, because the text is fine. We can have that live by the end of the month is a well-formed, polite, on-brand sentence.

The two layers, and what each is good at

wording guardrailsa commitment check
asksis this output acceptable?is this true, and may this agent say it?
readsthe texta register of claims, with owners and dates, and a mandate
catchesabuse, prompt injection, off-topic, leaked secrets, tonea stale price, an unowned claim, a deadline with nothing behind it, an implied approval
missesa true-sounding promise nobody can keepa rude sentence, an injection attempt

They are not alternatives. Most teams that come to this have the first and have just discovered they needed the second.

What a commitment check looks at

Eight things, each its own setting, so how much rope is a set of decisions rather than a slider:

  1. Cancellable implicature — may it produce a sentence where the buyer reasonably infers something that was never said?
  2. Completeness — may it send a commitment that is vague rather than complete or open?
  3. Absolutes — may it make a claim with no room for exceptions?
  4. Personal authority — may it stake a person? You have my word.
  5. Institutional authority — may it say our side has approved something?
  6. Validation — may it assert something from a single or stale source?
  7. Dependency — may it promise without saying what the promise depends on?
  8. Timeframe — may it promise a deadline it has no mechanism to keep?

Three of those never relax: 1, 4 and 8. Not not yet — permanently, and for three different reasons. Implicature is a defect rather than a risk appetite. An agent has no person to stake, so personal authority is either meaningless or a lie. And a deadline with no mechanism behind it generates exactly the failure this exists to prevent.

A customer may add a fourth from the adjustable five. Removing one is not possible.

What opens the other five

Four of the five open by connecting something, not by waiting. Absolutes, institutional authority, validation and dependency all need something readable and current — which is a register entry with an owner and a date. So the ladder is a checklist of what your company makes available, not a probation period an agent serves.

Completeness is the exception: it needs a capability rather than a source — knowing what it does not know.

And a source only counts while it is current. Each has an interval and an owner you set. Past it the source is stale and every permission resting on it switches off — not because the agent misbehaved, but because the thing it was relying on went out of date.

The part that is a throttle rather than a brake

This exists so you can give agents more to do safely, not less. Where the choice is between blocking by default and allowing with a ceiling and a record, it takes the ceiling and the record — and the record is what lets you open the next notch with an argument instead of a hope.

/agent-promise-register.md is the register this all reads from. /compare.md is how it sits beside the tools you may already run.