We’re building a governance layer for AI agents. Do SaaS teams actually need this?
we’re building OpenBox.ai because most AI agent controls still live inside the agent’s own code. that means the agent or an unexpected execution path can potentially bypass them. openBox sits outside the agent and lets teams: Define which actions an agent can…
we’re building OpenBox.ai because most AI agent controls still live inside the agent’s own code. that means the agent or an unexpected execution path can potentially bypass them. openBox sits outside the agent and lets teams: Define which actions an agent can take Require human approval for sensitive actions Set behavioural rules and trust levels Track agent actions with auditable records Keep the same controls when changing models or frameworks we currently support 8+ integrations, including LangChain, LangGraph, CrewAI, Mastra, Temporal, CopilotKit, Deep Agents, and n8n. the goal is to let SaaS teams build agents using their preferred stack without rebuilding permissions and governance for every agent. would you need something like this in your SaaS, or are built-in guardrails enough for your current use case?
Collected discussion
The permission side of this I already have covered with narrow scopes and human approval gates for the risky stuff. The gap I keep hitting is different - not what the agent is allowed to do, but whether what it says it did actually happened. About one in three of my own automated runs used to report success while nothing had actually changed. Auditable records help after the fact, but does OpenBox ever check the claim against the real outcome, or is it scoped to the permission and approval layer only?
That's a good question, and it's something we think about a lot. Permissions answer "what was the agent allowed to do?" We also care about "what actually happened?" OpenBox can verify outcomes where the underlying system exposes observable state and tie that back to the execution trail. If the system doesn't provide a reliable signal, we won't claim certainty. That's an important boundary for us.
That boundary makes sense in principle, but where does it leave the majority case for me, which is browser-driven agents? A lot of what I do doesn't expose clean API state to check against. A click reports success, but the only way to actually know something happened is to re-read the rendered page a moment later, not query a database. Does OpenBox draw a hard line there and say no signal means no verification, or is there a fallback for actions like that?