Define the question
Confirm the workflow, collection window, scope, payment terms, and timing. We don’t need production access.
Reliability reports for AI automations
Your logs have numbers.
Find your next move.
A focused review for agencies and small software teams. Understand recorded failures, see what retries cost, and leave with three concrete investigations.
One workflow. One seven-day export. A report you can use.
Measure what the export supports.
Say what it cannot tell you.
01 / See the deliverable
From a log export
to a readable review.
The sample uses 100 fictional runs. It shows exactly how we define success, count retries, and calculate spending—alongside the limits of those numbers.
Open the full reportInside the synthetic example
- 01
10 runs without recorded success
Check error categories and collection boundaries before deciding what failed.
- 02
$0.30 spent on retry attempts
Separate useful recovery from avoidable effort. Don’t assume all retry cost is waste.
- 03
A 30-second latency tail
Compare slow attempts with service targets before changing timeouts.
02 / Start small
A clear scope.
A useful first review.
Bring one workflow and the decision you’re trying to make. We’ll confirm the scope and data format before an order is accepted.
This is a new pilot offer. Pricing and customer demand are being tested.
The pilot
$49 USD equivalent · one time
- One workflow, up to 1,000 terminal attempts
- One seven-day export of sanitized records
- Success counts, retry spending, and attempt latency
- Three prioritized investigations
- HTML, Markdown, and machine-readable totals
- One clarification or correction on the same export
Target: two business days after scope, data, payment, and availability are confirmed.
Discuss a pilotNo subscription. No payment or log upload on this page.
03 / A small, deliberate process
Keep the data simple.
Share only the essentials
Six fields: random run and attempt IDs, start time, status, latency, and recorded USD cost. Agree a private transfer method first.
Make the next decision
Review the numbers, understand their limits, and choose what to investigate. No unsupported root-cause or savings claims.
What this review can—and cannot—do
Will you need prompts, customer content, or credentials?
No. This pilot uses sanitized metadata only. Don’t send prompts, outputs, personal information, secrets, or production credentials. The report generator processes the export locally without sending records to an external AI service. Agree retention and deletion before sharing any records.
Does a successful run mean the output was correct?
No. “Recorded success” means at least one included attempt has a success status. It does not verify content quality, delivery, or business correctness. Output-quality evaluation and implementation work are outside this pilot.
Is this continuous monitoring or a guaranteed saving?
No. It is a review of one export. Missing traffic, invoice accuracy, root causes, end-to-end run latency, and achievable savings cannot be verified from these six fields alone. We will describe those limits in the report.
How does this compare with a tracing dashboard?
If your current tools already answer your question, you may not need this service. The pilot tests whether a focused interpretation and readable report help you decide what to investigate next.
04 / Tell us what’s difficult to see
Which workflow needs
a clearer report?
Send a short description of the workflow and the question you’re trying to answer. Please send no logs or sensitive data in the first email. We’ll need to agree scope and a private transfer method before intake.
Inquire at sam@algo.reportPilot inquiries open. Orders are accepted only after a separate agreement.