RC2026

Product Engineering

·
APR–SEP 2026

AgentRamp

The policy execution layer for a US state human-services agency: AI-suggested policy edits decided on the record, a cited caseworker assistant, supervisor oversight and reviewed training.

Artifacts

Stack

Product EngineeringReact + HonoAI Review WorkflowsCited Assistant UXAccessibility

Synopsis

AgentRamp is the policy execution layer for state health and human services agencies. Federal rules, the state's policy manual, caseworker guidance, training and QA sit in one connected graph, so when a regulation changes the agency can see which manual sections, answers and training modules it touches, and carry the approved change through to the front line. Policy staff review AI-suggested edits in Policy Studio; caseworkers ask Clara, which answers from the agency's own policy with citations; supervisors oversee those conversations; and training authors turn approved policy into lessons in the Learning Hub. AI suggestions stay drafts until a person approves them.

From April to September 2026 I was one of two engineers on the vendor team building the application for a US state human-services agency. I owned Policy Studio's review and publishing flow and the collaborative editor underneath it, the Clara chat experience and its supervisor tools, Learning Hub review and publishing, notification delivery, role-based access and the accessibility pass. The Policy Studio and Clara work shipped in the agency's July and August 2026 production releases; the Learning Hub work followed a client walkthrough in September.

Everything on this page is described at product level. The screens are recreated with sample data for a fictional agency; no client data, screenshots or names appear.

Federal rules, state policy, guidance, training and QA, connected in one policy execution platform.

AgentRamp policy impact map, recreated with sample data: a material change detected in a federal SNAP verification rule (7 CFR 273.2(f)) flows into the Policy Intelligence Graph, which fans out to five layers: state policy (3 sections affected, 18 AI edits), worker guidance (Clara answers updated), training (2 modules in review), simulation (scenarios adjusted) and QA analytics (risk monitored). A note says AI suggestions stay drafts until a person approves them.
One federal rule change, traced through every layer it touches: the state manual, caseworker guidance, training, simulation and QA.
Product features
#1

Approve

AI proposes edits to the state manual as tracked changes, each with its reasoning and the federal rule it rests on. Staff accept or deny every one on the record, and Publish stays locked until all are decided.

My partI built this review and publishing flow: reasoning and citations on every suggested edit (on a 56-block policy, the reasons reaching reviewers went from 26 to 53), accept and deny with an audit trail, a workflow that refuses illegal jumps, version history, and the live collaborative editor underneath.

AgentRamp Policy Studio, recreated with sample data. Section 4.12 Income verification of a SNAP policy manual shows AI-suggested tracked changes: accepted ones marked with a green tick, a denied one with a cross, and suggestion 14 selected. The review rail shows the current and new wording, why the AI suggested it, and the cited federal regulation, 7 CFR 273.2(f)(1)(i), with the relevant passage highlighted, above Accept and Deny buttons. 17 of 18 changes are decided and Publish v8 is locked.
#2

Answer

Caseworkers ask Clara about a case and get a state-specific answer with numbered citations. The cited passage is one click away, and anything uncertain goes to a supervisor.

My partI built the Clara chat: streaming answers, citations that open and highlight the source, sources that stay attached to follow-up questions, answer and session feedback, and one-click escalation.

AgentRamp's Clara assistant, recreated with sample data. A caseworker asks which income counts for a recertification when a job has ended; Clara answers in two short paragraphs with numbered citations, drafts a case note, and offers feedback, Copy to case note and Escalate to supervisor. The Sources panel lists two policy-manual sections and a federal regulation, with the passage behind citation 2 highlighted.
#3

Oversee

Supervisors claim escalated questions from their region's queue and see what caseworkers ask, which sections they lean on, and how answers are rated.

My partI built the regional queue (two supervisors can't claim the same escalation), four role tiers for who may read whose transcripts with every view logged, and the region-first analytics that drill down to caseworkers and export CSV.

AgentRamp escalations view for a regional supervisor, recreated with sample data. Tiles show questions to Clara this week, open escalations, median time to claim and the share of answers rated helpful. The escalation queue lists each question's time, caseworker, topic, cited section and state (Claim, Unclaimed, Claimed, Resolved, Returned), and a side panel ranks the manual sections Clara cited most in the last seven days.
#4

Train

Approved policy becomes focused lessons and knowledge checks, and reviewers sign off on exactly what learners will see before it publishes.

My partI built review and publishing: approvals belong to the content, so an edit after approval resets them; the published version stays frozen while authors draft the next; and nothing republishes when nothing changed.

AgentRamp Learning Hub module review, recreated with sample data. The module Verifying income after a job ends, built from policy manual section 4.12 v8, lists six lessons and a knowledge check; lesson 3 is previewed with a multiple-choice question. The review panel shows two approvals and one change request, and Publish v3 to learners stays locked; learners see v2 until v3 is approved.

Architecture

System Layers

Policy Studio

Where policy staff work. A policy is a set of blocks mapped to the regulations they implement. AI-suggested edits appear as tracked changes with their reasoning and cited regulation beside them; several people edit the same policy at once with live cursors, comments and an edited-by trail; version history keeps every published version and reopens one for the next cycle.

Iglobe

Clara

The caseworker assistant. Answers stream in with numbered citations that open the cited passage, the sources of an answer stay attached to follow-up questions, caseworkers rate answers and the session, and hard questions go to a regional supervisor queue. Answer generation runs in AgentRamp's core platform; I built the chat, the citations, the oversight tools and the analytics around it.

IIcpu

Learning Hub + Training Studio

Training authors generate quizzes, job aids and slides from policy sources, edit them in Office formats in the browser, and send modules for review. Learners only ever see a published, approved version.

IIIlayers

Application backend (Hono)

A Node.js service on PostgreSQL that fronts AgentRamp's core platform. It owns the editorial workflow and its state machine, the collaboration server, access control, Clara sessions and analytics, and notification delivery.

IVserver

Delivery and operations

Azure throughout: container apps behind a front door, managed PostgreSQL, blob storage and email delivery, with pipelines promoting develop to QA to production. Vitest suites in the shared, API and web packages, database-backed tests and Playwright.

Vdatabase

Execution Flow

6 steps
  1. Step 01

    A regulation changes

    Policy Radar lists the incoming source and the policies and blocks it affects; an analyst triages it from the inbox and opens the impacted block directly.

  2. Step 02

    AI suggests edits

    Suggestion generation runs as a background job. Each suggestion arrives as a tracked change in the block, with the reasoning and the cited regulation beside it.

  3. Step 03

    Reviewers decide

    Each edit is accepted or denied on the record, with comments in place. Denials go back to the core platform and stay in the trail; a denied edit does not come back.

  4. Step 04

    Publish unlocks

    Once every change has a decision, the workflow allows publishing. The new version joins the history, and the policy can be reopened for the next cycle.

  5. Step 05

    Caseworkers ask Clara

    Answers cite the published policy and the knowledge library, follow-ups keep the sources, and a hard case goes to a supervisor's regional queue.

  6. Step 06

    People are notified

    Workflow, comment and escalation events become emails that are delivered once, with retries, and held back if an outage has made them stale.

  7. Done

Core Engineering

Field Notes
01

Reasoning and citation for every AI edit

Reviewers decide on tracked changes in regulated text, so each suggested edit shows why the model proposed it and the regulation it rests on, with the cited passage highlighted a click away.

Before this, most of the reasons the model produced never reached the review screen: on a 56-block policy, the reasons shown to reviewers went from 26 to 53, with none missing.

Reasons shown to reviewers (56-block policy)
Before26After53
03

Version history and the next edit cycle

Every published version is kept, a published policy can be reopened for the next cycle, and a reviewer can see what changed between versions.

Suggestion generation moved to a background job the screen polls, so a long model call no longer holds a request open and a finished suggestion drops into the page as a single block.

05

Clara: cited answers, sticky sources, feedback

Streaming answers with clickable numbered citations that open, expand and highlight the cited block.

The sources of one answer stay attached to the next question, so follow-ups stay grounded in the same documents, and source documents open from the Sources panel. Thumbs feedback on answers, an end-of-session rating, and archived chats.

07

Learning Hub review and publishing

A module's approvals are tied to its content: a substantive edit after approval resets the approval, a module can't be republished when nothing changed, and the published version stays exactly as approved while the author keeps editing the next draft.

Review also needs a quiz pass rate set before it starts. Earlier, one authoring flow produced quizzes, job aids and slides, editable in Office formats in the browser and generated into the agency's own branded templates. The review and publishing rules came out of a client walkthrough in September; the fixes shipped within about a week.

02

Accept, deny, and publish only when every change is decided

Each edit is accepted or denied on the record.

A denial is sent back to the core platform and kept as a comment, so a denied edit can't quietly reappear, including after a reload. The workflow is a state machine: an illegal jump, such as publishing a draft nobody reviewed, is refused, and Publish only unlocks once every change has a decision, with denials counting as decisions. A window in which a reviewer's decisions could be lost after suggestions were regenerated was closed.

04

Collaborative policy editing

Several analysts edit one long policy at the same time, with live cursors, tracked changes, AI suggestions as diff marks, comments in place and an edited-by chip, and drafts survive reloads and tabs.

The first version doubled a policy's content on every reload because the editor seeded the shared document before its first sync; seeding only after sync fixed it. Viewers see the policy without the suggestions, and unauthorized connections are rejected before any document state loads.

06

Supervisor oversight and analytics

Escalations park unassigned in their region's queue until a supervisor claims them, two supervisors can't claim the same one, and queue depth shows per region.

Four role tiers set who may read whose transcripts, every transcript view is logged, and a region-first analytics dashboard drills down to individual caseworkers and exports CSV.

08

Notifications, access control and accessibility

Workflow, comment and Clara events email the right people exactly once, retries back off, and after an outage a backlog of stale 'immediate' mail is suppressed rather than sent late.

Access to policy content is decided server-side from the policy's current workflow status. A WCAG 2.1 AA conformance pass added contrast tokens, visible focus, reduced motion, a skip link, landmarks, live regions and keyboard-operable tables; manual assistive-technology QA was still recommended afterwards.

Reflections
Outcomes
  • “The reason has to travel with the edit. Reviewers accept or deny what they can see; surfacing each suggestion's reasoning and citation more than doubled the reasons reaching them (26 to 53) and changed how review happened.
  • “Make illegal states unreachable, not just unlikely. A workflow state machine that refuses bad transitions, and a Publish that only unlocks when every change is decided, removed a whole class of half-published policies.
  • “A denial is data. Sending denials back to the platform and keeping them as comments is what made a denied edit stay denied after a reload.
  • “Approvals belong to the content, not to the module. Resetting approval on substantive edits and freezing the published snapshot is what lets authors keep working without leaking drafts to learners.
  • “Walk through it with the client. The September walkthrough produced the Learning Hub fixes within about a week, and most of them were things no ticket had captured.
Next Steps
  • Measure in production: the review and Clara work shipped with design budgets rather than before-and-after latency numbers.
  • Land the remaining notification families and the assignment lifecycle (due soon, overdue, withdrawn), which were built but not merged when the engagement wound down.
  • Follow the accessibility conformance pass with manual assistive-technology testing.

One Last Thing

The core challenge: A state agency's policy manual is regulated text that caseworkers act on every day. When an AI proposes edits to it, the staff who own the policy have to see why each edit was proposed and which regulation it rests on, decide every edit on the record, and never publish a half-reviewed version. The same bar applies downstream: a caseworker assistant has to show its sources and hand hard cases to a supervisor, and training modules must only reach learners once reviewers have approved exactly what learners will see.

More from the Archive

View All