Visibility before automation
Users first needed clarity on scope and permissions, so workspace context and configuration became highly visible.
Case study · Enterprise cybersecurity SaaS
Designing control and transparency for AI-powered security operations.
Active agents12
Automated runs84%
Success rate98.2%
01 — Problem
Security teams were beginning to use AI agents for incident response, but analysts needed to understand where an agent was operating, what it could do, when it would act, and what happened after it ran.
How might we enable security teams to configure and use autonomous AI agents while maintaining clear control, transparency, and trust?
02 — Research
The research examined current incident-response workflows, the boundary between manual control and automation, and the information analysts need before allowing AI to act. Product and engineering constraints—including workspaces, incident permissions, Gamebooks, severity, token limits, and existing workflows—grounded the design.
03 — Insights
Users first needed clarity on scope and permissions, so workspace context and configuration became highly visible.
More autonomous behavior required stronger validation, confirmation, and permission dependencies.
Analysts need evidence that the agent is working, even while they continue an investigation.
Execution history and activity tracking make previous AI actions understandable and reviewable.
04 — Personas
“I want AI to help me move faster, but I still need to understand what it’s doing before I trust the result.”
29 · Austin, TX · The Hands-On Investigator
Investigate quickly, reduce repetitive work, understand actions, and maintain visibility.
Invisible automation, unclear ownership, waiting without feedback, and scattered context.
Heavy desktop user in a fast-paced SOC, investigating several incidents across many tools and monitors.
“Automation is valuable only if I know exactly what it can do and where the boundaries are.”
38 · Chicago, IL · The Automation Controller
Configure agents safely, control workspace access, define autonomy, and monitor performance.
Scattered controls, policy inconsistency, hidden dependencies, and unhelpful failure information.
Advanced enterprise user responsible for operational quality, compliance, configurations, and team activity.
05 — Solution
Research led to Agent Hub: a complete control-and-transparency system rather than scattered automation settings throughout unrelated product areas.
06–08 — Flow & iteration
The creation flow established context before behavior: users select a workspace, name the agent, configure its autonomy, then review exactly what they are about to authorize.
Early wireframes showed that automatic mode, Gamebook permissions, and confidence thresholds felt too independent. The next iteration made the hierarchy explicit: Mode → Confidence → Allowed actions → Incident behavior. If automatic Gamebook execution is enabled, a confidence threshold becomes required—preventing incomplete configurations before deployment.
09–12 — Final experience
The final system pairs familiar configuration patterns with strong labels, visible AI state changes, consistent workspace context, and reviewable automation settings.
See each agent’s workspace, mode, thresholds, and status at a glance.
A four-step workflow for context, identity, behavior, and final review.
Inspect agent configuration, ownership, and execution history.
Contextual feedback shows an agent working without blocking the analyst.
13 — Beyond the happy path
Gamebook automation needs a defined confidence threshold before this agent can be deployed.
The agent is correlating evidence and preparing recommended actions. You can continue reviewing this incident.
The workspace permission policy prevented the selected Gamebook from being enabled. View technical details.
View technical details +This workspace has reached its AI token quota. Execution will resume when more resources are available.
Designing a production AI system meant considering not only what happened when the agent succeeded, but also how users would understand incomplete configuration, processing, failure, and system limitations.
14–15 — Handoff & QA
Engineering handoff included visual specifications and behavioral logic for manual and automatic modes; Gamebooks enabled or disabled; thresholds selected or missing; validation, deployment, running, success, failure, and token-quota states. I reviewed implementation against designs through agent creation, automation settings, deployment failures, execution history, ownership changes, and UI consistency.
16–17 — Outcome & reflection
The final design established a structured way to manage AI agents across multiple workspaces: users can configure autonomy, set safeguards, review permissions, observe work in progress, examine prior activity, and recover from failures.
The product evolved from a simple agent-management concept into a broader control-and-transparency system for AI-powered security operations.
The more autonomous a system becomes, the more important it is to help people understand what it can do, why it is acting, what its limits are, and how they remain in control.
If continued, I would explore richer AI explainability, detailed execution timelines, progressive automation controls, and clearer reasoning behind specific agent actions.