AI Business System Advisor

REMOTE · MCP.PRODXSOLUTION.COM · 2 COMPONENTS · SCANNED AUG 3

Find the safest first AI workflow before investing in AI agents or automation.

Available components

remote · mcp.prodxsolution.com 69 npm · ai-business-system-advisor-mcp 31

+4 this week 69 69 Trust /100

Trust breakdown (6 categories)

How this component scores in each security and reliability category. Every signal is checked automatically against the live server, and we only credit what we can confirm. How we score →

Endpoint Security63

The endpoint's TLS certificate is valid, in date, and uses a strong key. View diagnostics → Pass
No authorisation is required to call this server. Every tool declares its destructiveHint and none is destructive, so open access doesn't expose one. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Partial
HTTPS not yet verified: we couldn't determine whether a plaintext access path exists. View diagnostics → Unverified
HSTS check failed: the Strict-Transport-Security header is absent. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Fail
DNSSEC check failed: this domain isn't protected by DNSSEC. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Fail

Transport & Reachability100

Verified streamable-http transport via a live MCP handshake. View diagnostics → Pass

Schema Quality & AI Usability73

90% of prompts and resources have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the item's name).Partial
AI-judged instruction clarity (excellent).Pass
Context-footprint check failed: tool/resource definitions use about 3212 tokens (~214/item across 15 items; 9 tools + 6 resources), over budget; trim descriptions and params. See how to fix → Fail
Usage-examples check failed: none of the tools include examples. See how to fix → Fail

Stability & Change Management27

Stability observed for 8 of 30 days with no destabilising changes; credit accrues until the full window elapses.Partial

Tool Coverage100

100% of tools have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the tool's name).Pass
100% of tool parameters carry a description.Pass
Structured output schemas are declared (100% of tools); any adoption earns full credit.Pass

Capabilities100

Implements a supported MCP spec version (2025-11-25); the latest is 2026-07-28.Pass

Install

Add this component to your MCP client. Where a client-specific snippet is available, pick your client below and copy it straight into your config; otherwise use the connection detail shown.

remote · mcp.prodxsolution.com

Claude Codex opencode OpenClaw Hermes Other

# add to Claude Code

claude mcp add --transport http tenkai2018-ai-business-system-advisor-mcp https://mcp.prodxsolution.com/ai-business-system-advisor/mcp

# ~/.codex/config.toml

[mcp_servers.tenkai2018-ai-business-system-advisor-mcp]
url = "https://mcp.prodxsolution.com/ai-business-system-advisor/mcp"

// opencode.json

{
  "$schema": "https://opencode.ai/config.json",
  "mcp": {
    "tenkai2018-ai-business-system-advisor-mcp": {
      "type": "remote",
      "url": "https://mcp.prodxsolution.com/ai-business-system-advisor/mcp",
      "enabled": true
    }
  }
}

# add to OpenClaw

openclaw mcp add tenkai2018-ai-business-system-advisor-mcp --url https://mcp.prodxsolution.com/ai-business-system-advisor/mcp --transport streamable-http

# ~/.hermes/config.yaml

mcp_servers:
  tenkai2018-ai-business-system-advisor-mcp:
    url: "https://mcp.prodxsolution.com/ai-business-system-advisor/mcp"

// mcp.json

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "tenkai2018-ai-business-system-advisor-mcp": {
      "type": "http",
      "url": "https://mcp.prodxsolution.com/ai-business-system-advisor/mcp"
    }
  }
}

The mcpServers block is a cross-client convention. Remote transports vary, so check your client's docs.

Changelog

Every change we have recorded for this component, newest first. Security-relevant changes are always shown. ▲ marks a change for the better, ▼ a change for the worse; unmarked changes are neutral.

3 Aug 26 +1

No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 23 to 27. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 7 days of observed history at the previous scan, 8 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
1 Aug 26 +1

No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 17 to 20. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 5 days of observed history at the previous scan, 6 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
31 Jul 26 0
- We updated how we score, so this day's move reflects our rubric, not a change to the server See what changed → functional
30 Jul 26 +1
- We updated how we score, so this day's move reflects our rubric, not a change to the server See what changed → functional
29 Jul 26 +1

No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 7 to 10. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 2 days of observed history at the previous scan, 3 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
27 Jul 26 +1
- We updated how we score, so this day's move reflects our rubric, not a change to the server See what changed → functional
26 Jul 26 64

First indexed and scored.

Show 6 earlier entries Hide earlier entries

Diagnostics

Diagnostic detail from the automated scan of this channel: what the scanner observed at each step, so you can see exactly where a check passed or failed. It is informational only and never changes the trust score.

Captured 3 Aug 2026 · Probed https://mcp.prodxsolution.com/ai-business-system-advisor/mcp

TLS valid

Negotiated TLS 1.3 with TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 .

Subject	Issuer	Valid from	Valid until	Key	Signature	Serial
CN=prodxsolution.com	CN=WE1,O=Google Trust Services,C=US	29 Jul 2026	27 Oct 2026	ECDSA 256	ECDSA-SHA256	b112190e1bc52ce10e95b7ccf56efb07
SANs: prodxsolution.com, mcp.prodxsolution.com, *.mcp.prodxsolution.com
CN=WE1,O=Google Trust Services,C=US (CA)	CN=GTS Root R4,O=Google Trust Services LLC,C=US	13 Dec 2023	20 Feb 2029	ECDSA 256	ECDSA-SHA384	7ff31977972c224a76155d13b6d685e3
CN=GTS Root R4,O=Google Trust Services LLC,C=US (CA)	CN=GlobalSign Root CA,OU=Root CA,O=GlobalSign nv-sa,C=BE	15 Nov 2023	28 Jan 2028	ECDSA 384	SHA256-RSA	7fe530bf331343bedd821610493d8a1b

DNSSEC insecure

Validation of mcp.prodxsolution.com. — Not signed

Zone	DS	Keys	Algorithms	Outcome
.	trust_anchor	20326, 38696	8, 8	Verified
com.	present	19718	13	Verified
prodxsolution.com.	absent			Unsigned (proven) parent-signed NSEC/NSEC3 proves an unsigned delegation

Authentication No authorisation required

The endpoint answered without asking for a token. Anyone who knows the URL can reach it.

Result	No authorisation required
HTTP status	200

Transports 2 probes

Transport	URL	Outcome	Status	Location
streamable-http	https://mcp.prodxsolution.com/ai-business-system-advisor/mcp	Verified	200
http (plaintext)	http://mcp.prodxsolution.com/ai-business-system-advisor/mcp	Inconclusive	406

MCP tools — 9 exposed · ~3,115 tokens

The tools this component advertises to a client, with an estimated token cost for each. Expand a tool to see its parameters and schema. The per-tool counts are indicative and are not scored directly; the schema's total context footprint is one signal in Schema Quality & AI Usability.

Tool Tokens

analyze_business_context Analyze Business Context ~317

Summarizes the supplied business context, including customer, offer, workflow, goals, constraints, readiness signals, missing information, and confidence.

Input Output Examples

Name	Type	Req	Description
aiIdea	string	—	AI or automation idea the user is considering.
businessType	string	—	Type of business, such as ecommerce, SaaS, consulting, agency, local service, or solo business.
constraints	array	—	Known constraints such as budget, team capacity, tools, timeline, compliance needs, or data access.
currentGoal	string	—	Current business goal the user wants the review to support.
currentProblem	string	—	Main business or workflow problem the user wants to solve.
currentWorkflow	string	—	How the relevant workflow currently works, including manual steps, tools, handoffs, and review points.
goal90Days	string	—	Desired business or workflow outcome over the next 90 days.
notes	string	—	Any additional context the user wants considered in the review.
offer	string	—	Core product, service, package, or outcome the business sells.
revenueModel	string	—	How the business earns revenue, such as projects, retainers, subscriptions, services, or products.
riskConcerns	string	—	Concerns related to customer trust, brand reputation, legal exposure, sensitive data, or quality control.
targetCustomer	string	—	Primary customer segment or buyer the business serves.
teamSize	string	—	Approximate team size and key roles involved in the workflow.

Name	Type	Req	Description
businessSnapshot	string	yes	Concise public-safe summary of the business and operating context.
confidence	string	yes	Confidence level based on the clarity and completeness of the provided business context.
likelyBusinessModel	string	yes	Likely business model inferred from the supplied context.
missingInformation	array	yes	Information the user should provide to improve diagnostic confidence.
primaryConstraintHypothesis	string	yes	Likely main constraint limiting progress or readiness.
readinessSignals	array	yes	Signals that indicate whether the business is ready for AI-assisted workflow design.
targetCustomerSummary	string	yes	Short summary of the customer segment or buyer context.
valuePromiseHypothesis	string	yes	Hypothesis about the core value promise or outcome the business sells.

No examples provided.

assess_trust_control_risks Assess Trust And Control Risks ~309

Reviews a proposed AI workflow for human review needs, data boundaries, quality controls, escalation triggers, unsafe automation risks, and confidence.

Input Output Examples

Name	Type	Req	Description
aiIdea	string	—	Specific AI or automation idea the user is considering.
businessType	string	—	Type of business being reviewed.
canAffectBrandTrust	boolean	—	Whether the workflow can affect brand reputation, customer expectations, or public trust.
canAffectMoney	boolean	—	Whether the workflow can influence pricing, refunds, payments, scope, or financial decisions.
currentControls	string	—	Existing review, approval, QA, escalation, or monitoring controls.
currentProblem	string	—	Main business or workflow problem the user wants to solve.
currentWorkflow	string	—	Current workflow before AI or automation.
customerFacing	boolean	—	Whether the workflow directly affects customers or customer-facing messages.
proposedWorkflow	string	—	Proposed workflow design, including what AI would do and what humans would review.
requiresExpertJudgment	boolean	—	Whether the workflow needs professional, strategic, legal, financial, HR, or domain judgment.
riskConcerns	string	—	Known concerns about customer trust, brand risk, compliance, money, privacy, or quality control.
usesSensitiveData	boolean	—	Whether the workflow may use private, regulated, or sensitive business/customer data.
workflowIdea	string	—	AI workflow or agent idea to assess for trust and control risk.

Name	Type	Req	Description
confidence	string	yes	Confidence level based on the clarity and completeness of the provided business context.
dataBoundaryWarnings	array	yes	Warnings about sensitive data, privacy, access boundaries, or inappropriate inputs.
escalationTriggers	array	yes	Conditions that should escalate to a human owner or expert reviewer.
humanReviewRules	array	yes	Rules for when a human must review, approve, or override AI output.
missingInformation	array	yes	Information the user should provide to improve risk assessment confidence.
notRecommendedActions	array	yes	Actions that should not be automated in the current version.
requiredControls	array	yes	Controls needed before the workflow should be piloted or expanded.
riskLevel	string	yes	Estimated risk level for the workflow or recommendation.
riskSummary	string	yes	Concise public-safe summary of the main trust and control risks.

No examples provided.

evaluate_ai_opportunities Evaluate AI Opportunities ~160

Evaluates candidate AI workflow ideas for business value, implementation readiness, repeatability, trust/control risk, warnings, and missing information.

Input Output Examples

Name	Type	Req	Description
aiIdea	string	—	Specific AI or automation idea the user wants evaluated.
businessContext	string	—	Short description of the business, customers, offer, and current operating context.
businessType	string	—	Type of business being reviewed.
candidateUseCases	array	—	Candidate AI workflow ideas to evaluate.
currentProblem	string	—	Main problem the AI opportunities should help solve.
currentWorkflow	string	—	Current workflow before AI or automation.
riskConcerns	string	—	Concerns about customer trust, brand risk, money, privacy, compliance, or quality control.

Name	Type	Req	Description
confidence	string	yes	Confidence level based on the clarity and completeness of the provided business context.
missingInformation	array	yes	Information the user should provide to improve diagnostic confidence.
opportunities	array	yes	Evaluated AI opportunities with value, readiness, risk, and control guidance.
recommendedFirstOpportunity	string	—	Best first opportunity to consider based on value, readiness, and risk.
warnings	array	yes	Warnings about high-risk, premature, or unsafe automation patterns.

No examples provided.

export_intake_packet Export Intake Packet ~483

Creates a structured public-safe markdown and JSON intake packet with business context, findings, risks, recommended workflow, missing information, and confidence.

Input Output Examples

Name	Type	Req	Description
aiIdea	string	—	AI or automation idea the user is considering.
bottleneckSummary	object	—	Structured bottleneck findings from a prior tool result.
businessContext	object	—	Structured business context from a prior tool result or user notes.
businessType	string	—	Type of business, such as ecommerce, SaaS, consulting, agency, local service, or solo business.
constraints	array	—	Known constraints such as budget, team capacity, tools, timeline, compliance needs, or data access.
currentGoal	string	—	Current business goal the user wants the review to support.
currentProblem	string	—	Main business or workflow problem the user wants to solve.
currentWorkflow	string	—	How the relevant workflow currently works, including manual steps, tools, handoffs, and review points.
goal90Days	string	—	Desired business or workflow outcome over the next 90 days.
notes	string	—	Any additional context the user wants considered in the review.
offer	string	—	Core product, service, package, or outcome the business sells.
opportunitySummary	object	—	Structured AI opportunity findings from a prior tool result.
preferredNextStep	string	—	Preferred next-step category or support style to include in the packet.
recommendedNextStep	object	—	Structured next-step recommendation from a prior tool result.
recommendedWorkflow	object	—	Structured first workflow recommendation from a prior tool result.
revenueModel	string	—	How the business earns revenue, such as projects, retainers, subscriptions, services, or products.
riskConcerns	string	—	Concerns related to customer trust, brand reputation, legal exposure, sensitive data, or quality control.
riskSummary	object	—	Structured trust and control risk findings from a prior tool result.
targetCustomer	string	—	Primary customer segment or buyer the business serves.
teamSize	string	—	Approximate team size and key roles involved in the workflow.
touchpointMap	object	—	Structured customer touchpoint map from a prior tool result.
userNotes	string	—	Additional notes the user wants included in the intake packet.

Name	Type	Req	Description
confidence	string	yes	Confidence level based on the clarity and completeness of the provided business context.
missingInformation	array	yes	Information the user should provide before deeper review or implementation.
packetJson	object	yes	Structured intake packet data for handoff or deeper review.
packetMarkdown	string	yes	Public-safe intake packet formatted as markdown.
recommendedPrivateReview	string	yes	Public-safe recommendation for the next deeper review category.

No examples provided.

generate_mini_report Generate Mini Report ~466

Generates a public-safe mini business system review with snapshot, bottlenecks, opportunities, risks, first workflow, next step, missing information, and confidence.

Input Output Examples

Name	Type	Req	Description
aiIdea	string	—	AI or automation idea the user is considering.
bottlenecks	array	—	Known bottlenecks to include in the mini review.
businessSnapshot	string	—	Existing business snapshot to include or refine in the mini review.
businessType	string	—	Type of business, such as ecommerce, SaaS, consulting, agency, local service, or solo business.
confidence	string	—	Optional confidence level to carry into the report.
constraints	array	—	Known constraints such as budget, team capacity, tools, timeline, compliance needs, or data access.
currentGoal	string	—	Current business goal the user wants the review to support.
currentProblem	string	—	Main business or workflow problem the user wants to solve.
currentWorkflow	string	—	How the relevant workflow currently works, including manual steps, tools, handoffs, and review points.
goal90Days	string	—	Desired business or workflow outcome over the next 90 days.
nextStep	string	—	Existing next-step recommendation to include or refine.
notes	string	—	Any additional context the user wants considered in the review.
offer	string	—	Core product, service, package, or outcome the business sells.
opportunities	array	—	Known AI opportunities to include in the mini review.
preferredNextStep	string	—	User preference for self-guided, diagnostic, documentation, build, or review support.
recommendedWorkflow	string	—	Existing first workflow recommendation to include or refine.
revenueModel	string	—	How the business earns revenue, such as projects, retainers, subscriptions, services, or products.
riskConcerns	string	—	Concerns related to customer trust, brand reputation, legal exposure, sensitive data, or quality control.
risks	array	—	Known trust, control, customer, or implementation risks to include.
targetCustomer	string	—	Primary customer segment or buyer the business serves.
teamSize	string	—	Approximate team size and key roles involved in the workflow.

Name	Type	Req	Description
confidence	string	yes	Confidence level based on the clarity and completeness of the provided business context.
disclaimer	string	yes	Public safety note explaining the limits of the review.
missingInformation	array	yes	Information the user should provide to improve report confidence.
recommendedAction	string	yes	Most practical next action based on the supplied context.
reportMarkdown	string	yes	Public-safe mini review formatted as markdown.
shortSummary	string	yes	Brief summary of the review result.

No examples provided.

identify_bottlenecks Identify Bottlenecks ~233

Identifies likely revenue, operations, customer experience, and trust/control bottlenecks from the supplied business context and returns a public-safe summary.

Input Output Examples

Name	Type	Req	Description
aiIdea	string	—	Optional AI or automation idea the user is considering.
businessContext	string	—	Short description of the business model, customers, offer, team, and operating context.
businessType	string	—	Type of business being reviewed.
currentProblem	string	—	Main problem or bottleneck the user suspects.
currentWorkflow	string	—	Current workflow steps, handoffs, tools, and review points.
customerComplaints	string	—	Known customer complaints, friction points, refunds, or support issues.
metrics	string	—	Known metrics such as response time, conversion, close rate, cycle time, churn, cost, or error rate.
riskConcerns	string	—	Concerns about customer trust, brand risk, money, privacy, compliance, or quality control.
teamPainPoints	string	—	Internal pain points such as repetitive work, slow handoffs, rework, or unclear ownership.

Name	Type	Req	Description
bottleneckSummary	string	yes	Concise public-safe summary of the most important bottlenecks.
confidence	string	yes	Confidence level based on the clarity and completeness of the provided business context.
customerExperienceBottlenecks	array	yes	Likely issues that create customer friction, unclear expectations, slow responses, or inconsistent service.
missingInformation	array	yes	Information the user should provide to improve diagnostic confidence.
mostLikelyRootCause	string	yes	Most likely underlying cause connecting the visible bottlenecks.
operationalBottlenecks	array	yes	Likely issues that slow delivery, increase manual work, create rework, or reduce efficiency.
revenueBottlenecks	array	yes	Likely issues that reduce sales, conversion, qualified calls, deal speed, or revenue growth.
trustControlBottlenecks	array	yes	Likely gaps in review rules, approvals, escalation triggers, data boundaries, or quality control.

No examples provided.

map_customer_touchpoints Map Customer Touchpoints ~287

Maps customer-facing workflow stages, trust-sensitive moments, automation-safe areas, human-critical areas, missing information, and confidence.

Input Output Examples

Name	Type	Req	Description
aiIdea	string	—	AI or automation idea that may affect customer touchpoints.
businessType	string	—	Type of business being reviewed.
currentProblem	string	—	Main customer journey or workflow problem the user wants to solve.
currentWorkflow	string	—	Current workflow steps, tools, owners, and handoffs.
customerJourney	array	—	Known customer journey stages from first contact through retention.
deliveryProcess	string	—	How the business delivers the offer or service after onboarding.
onboardingProcess	string	—	How new customers are welcomed, scoped, educated, or set up.
recoveryProcess	string	—	How complaints, refunds, exceptions, or service recovery are handled.
retentionProcess	string	—	How renewals, repeat purchases, referrals, or ongoing customer value are managed.
riskConcerns	string	—	Concerns about trust, customer experience, brand reputation, privacy, or quality control.
salesProcess	string	—	How leads are qualified, sold, and converted before delivery begins.
supportProcess	string	—	How customer questions, issues, tickets, or requests are handled.
touchpoints	array	—	Specific customer-facing moments, handoffs, or interactions to review.

Name	Type	Req	Description
automationSafeAreas	array	yes	Areas that appear suitable for AI assistance or automation with low risk.
confidence	string	yes	Confidence level based on the clarity and completeness of the provided business context.
humanCriticalAreas	array	yes	Areas where human review or ownership should remain explicit.
missingInformation	array	yes	Information the user should provide to improve diagnostic confidence.
touchpoints	array	yes	Reviewed customer touchpoints with classification, reason, and suggested control.
trustSensitiveMoments	array	yes	Moments where customer trust, expectations, or brand perception may be at risk.

No examples provided.

recommend_first_workflow Recommend First Workflow ~371

Recommends the safest narrow AI-human workflow to implement first, including roles, review rules, escalation rules, success metrics, and missing information.

Input Output Examples

Name	Type	Req	Description
aiIdea	string	—	AI or automation idea the user is considering.
bottlenecks	array	—	Known or suspected bottlenecks the first workflow should address.
businessType	string	—	Type of business, such as ecommerce, SaaS, consulting, agency, local service, or solo business.
constraints	array	—	Known constraints such as budget, team capacity, tools, timeline, compliance needs, or data access.
currentGoal	string	—	Current business goal the user wants the review to support.
currentProblem	string	—	Main business or workflow problem the user wants to solve.
currentWorkflow	string	—	How the relevant workflow currently works, including manual steps, tools, handoffs, and review points.
goal90Days	string	—	Desired business or workflow outcome over the next 90 days.
notes	string	—	Any additional context the user wants considered in the review.
offer	string	—	Core product, service, package, or outcome the business sells.
opportunities	array	—	AI opportunities already identified or under consideration.
revenueModel	string	—	How the business earns revenue, such as projects, retainers, subscriptions, services, or products.
riskConcerns	string	—	Concerns related to customer trust, brand reputation, legal exposure, sensitive data, or quality control.
risks	array	—	Known risks or control concerns that should shape the workflow design.
targetCustomer	string	—	Primary customer segment or buyer the business serves.
teamSize	string	—	Approximate team size and key roles involved in the workflow.

Name	Type	Req	Description
aiRole	string	yes	What AI should observe, summarize, draft, classify, or prepare.
confidence	string	yes	Confidence level based on the clarity and completeness of the provided business context.
escalationRule	string	yes	Rule for cases that should escalate to a human owner or expert.
expectedOutcome	string	yes	Expected business outcome if the workflow is piloted successfully.
firstImplementationScope	string	yes	Smallest practical pilot scope for the first version.
humanRole	string	yes	What a human should approve, decide, handle, or monitor.
missingInformation	array	yes	Information the user should provide to improve workflow recommendation confidence.
recommendedWorkflow	string	yes	Narrow AI-human workflow recommended as the safest first implementation.
reviewRule	string	yes	Rule for when human review is required before output or action.
successMetrics	array	yes	Practical metrics to evaluate workflow pilot success.
whyThisWorkflow	string	yes	Reason this workflow is a practical first candidate based on value, readiness, and risk.
workflowCategory	string	yes	Category of workflow, such as sales prep, support triage, QA, reporting, or operations.

No examples provided.

recommend_next_step Recommend Next Step ~489

Recommends a practical next-step category based on business goal, workflow complexity, implementation readiness, risk level, preferences, and missing information.

Input Output Examples

Name	Type	Req	Description
aiIdea	string	—	AI or automation idea the user is considering.
businessType	string	—	Type of business, such as ecommerce, SaaS, consulting, agency, local service, or solo business.
constraints	array	—	Known constraints such as budget, team capacity, tools, timeline, compliance needs, or data access.
currentGoal	string	—	Current business goal the user wants the review to support.
currentProblem	string	—	Main business or workflow problem the user wants to solve.
currentWorkflow	string	—	How the relevant workflow currently works, including manual steps, tools, handoffs, and review points.
goal90Days	string	—	Desired business or workflow outcome over the next 90 days.
hasExistingAutomation	boolean	—	Whether the business already has automation or AI workflows in place.
implementationReadiness	string	—	How ready the business appears for implementation.
notes	string	—	Any additional context the user wants considered in the review.
offer	string	—	Core product, service, package, or outcome the business sells.
preference	string	—	User's preferred support style.
problemComplexity	string	—	Estimated complexity of the business or workflow problem.
readiness	string	—	Simplified readiness level if already known.
revenueModel	string	—	How the business earns revenue, such as projects, retainers, subscriptions, services, or products.
riskConcerns	string	—	Concerns related to customer trust, brand reputation, legal exposure, sensitive data, or quality control.
riskLevel	string	—	Estimated risk level or uncertainty for the workflow.
targetCustomer	string	—	Primary customer segment or buyer the business serves.
teamSize	string	—	Approximate team size and key roles involved in the workflow.
timeline	string	—	Desired timeline for review, documentation, pilot, or implementation.
userGoal	string	—	Goal the user wants the next step to support.
wantsDoneForYou	boolean	—	Whether the user prefers implementation support rather than self-guided work.
wantsSelfGuided	boolean	—	Whether the user prefers self-guided resources or templates.

Name	Type	Req	Description
alternativePaths	array	yes	Other reasonable next-step categories the user could consider.
confidence	string	yes	Confidence level based on the clarity and completeness of the provided business context.
missingInformation	array	yes	Information the user should provide to improve routing confidence.
readinessLevel	string	yes	Estimated readiness level for the recommended path.
reason	string	yes	Reason this next-step category fits the supplied context.
recommendedPath	string	yes	Recommended next-step category.
suggestedAction	string	yes	Practical action the user can take next.

No examples provided.

On this page

Handy links

Scoring key

80+ high trust
60–79 medium
below 60 low

How we score

Score history · last 30 days

26 Jul 3 Aug

Day	Score
26 Jul	64
27 Jul	65
28 Jul	65
29 Jul	66
30 Jul	67
31 Jul	67
1 Aug	68
2 Aug	68
3 Aug	69