Human review for agentic workflows
Approve or reject is rarely what is being decided. A reviewer might need to set a limit, correct one field, or send the work back with a note. Give them the context and a response that fits, and the answer goes straight back into the workflow.
Example review
An agent prepared a $50,000 payment. Company policy requires a person to set the approved amount before the payment workflow can continue.
Payment review
One response will be sentResponse preview
$25,000 limit · Two paymentsStructured human review
A payment limit needs a number. A proposed change may need feedback. Give reviewers a response format that fits the work, with context that identifies where each fact came from.
The application saves its workflow state while the work waits for a person's judgment.
They see who supplied each fact and use controls designed for the decision.
A signed, structured response connects the person's decision to the work awaiting review.
Current policy and business checks determine whether the work resumes, changes, stops, or remains paused.
More than approve or reject
Your team decides which values a reviewer may replace.
What happens after submission
Use the original work after the application checks it again.
Resume the exact workflow branch with the submitted values.
Route the response to the application’s revision path.
Record the response without advancing the protected work.
Slack and Microsoft Teams
When a review is assigned, the reviewer gets a direct message in Slack or a personal card in Teams. Every decision made there is recorded in VeriProof and reaches your application the same way a portal decision does.
1 · The reviewer gets a direct message
2 · They approve, and the same message updates
3 · VeriProof keeps the record
Decision recordedIn VeriProof
Slack forms and Teams cards can collect decisions, typed answers, and questions for the application, within your administrator's data limit. Unsupported fields and action-data replacements open in VeriProof. See the setup requirements for Slack and Microsoft Teams.
Context for the reviewer
A reviewer who cannot tell which facts came from the system and which came from the agent is guessing. Here every fact carries its source, and gaps are visible rather than silent.
Facts from VeriProof records are identified, so reviewers know which information they are looking at.
An application-provided summary explains the work awaiting a decision. Its facts are labelled separately from VeriProof records.
Missing or shortened information is visible. Reviewers can judge whether they have enough to respond.
Connected to your workflow
The reviewer's answer arrives signed and tied to the exact action that was paused. If the work changed while the review was open, that approval cannot be used to advance it.
SDK integration
The 1.0.0 package set includes six core SDKs for TypeScript, Python, .NET, Java, Rust, and Go. 35 Enforce adapters bring the same checks and human review to the major agent frameworks in each language.
Review options
Ask for the answers the workflow needs, with up to 12 fields in a review profile.
One authorized reviewer provides the final response for each paused action, with their decision retained for review.
Your team chooses which fields reviewers may replace. The rest of the proposal stays protected.
Your application keeps the paused work. VeriProof holds the review request and decision history, then returns the reviewer’s response for the application to check and apply.
Your team chooses the fields and choices available to reviewers. They can replace permitted values, such as a payment limit, while protected settings remain unchanged.
The application can cancel an outdated request. It checks the response before acting; if the work has changed, the earlier approval cannot advance that action.