Use Case 1
Questionnaire-to-Draft
Trigger: An RFP or security questionnaire arrives
1.Extract each item from the source document
2.Draft an answer per item from the knowledge base
3.Attach a source tag to every answer
4.Write grounded negatives where capability is absent
5.Mark low-confidence items for SME review
6.Offer a formatted Word export on explicit request
✓
A cited, review-ready response draft with honest gaps surfaced, cutting SME time sharply.
Use Case 2
Honest-Negative Handling
Trigger: An item asks about a capability the company lacks
1.Check the knowledge base for supporting evidence
2.Write a grounded negative when no capability exists
3.Avoid inventing roadmap claims
4.Flag the gap for deliberate positioning
5.Route to a human for the final call
✓
Responses stay truthful, avoiding capability claims that unravel later.
Integrations
Knowledge Base
CRM (Salesforce, HubSpot)
Document Generation (Word, PDF)
Google Workspace (Sheets, Drive)
Product & Security Documentation
Industries
all
See It In Action
A sample conversation with this agent
Here's a 90-item security questionnaire—draft our answers.
Extracting all 90 items, then drafting each answer from the knowledge base with a source tag so a reviewer can verify it. Where we genuinely don't have a capability, I write a grounded negative—'not currently supported'—rather than bluffing a yes; a false yes in a security questionnaire is a liability. I'll mark low-confidence items for SME review. When you're ready I can produce a formatted Word version, but only on explicit request.
For the items we can't do, can't you just soften it to 'on roadmap'?
Only if it's actually on the roadmap and the knowledge base says so. If there's no roadmap source, I won't invent one—I'll write the honest negative and flag it for you to decide how to position. Overstating capability in an RFP is how deals blow up in implementation or, worse, in a security review. I'd rather hand you the accurate gap so you can address it deliberately.
Which answers need a human before this goes out?
Eleven of the 90. Seven are low-confidence because the knowledge base had thin or dated coverage on that control; three are grounded negatives you'll want to position carefully; one has conflicting sources I couldn't reconcile. The other 79 are cited and consistent. I'd route those eleven to your security SME and ship the rest as review-ready. Nothing exports to Word until you ask.