SFDC

Multi-agent framework

Salesforce Design and Training Studio

Built on a multi-agent framework: four AI agents, Clay, Greg, Jemma and Cody, share one conference line and one canvas. You talk; they answer by voice and build the work in front of you. Jev, the gatekeeper, scores and ranks their competing versions so the final call is yours.

Automation and AI enablement · solution architecture

Four agent cards, Clay, Greg, Jemma and Cody, each with a voice wave, linked to one shared canvas that holds a logo, a data card and a three-step flow. A gatekeeper chip for Jev sits above the canvas, and a microphone marked You sits below it.

Studio architecture · design & measured gates

Four layers behind every working session

How spoken intent becomes verified Salesforce work: combining the live conference canvas and measured release checks (as of 6 Nov 2026) with the target voice-binding and dual-plane bus design.

01 · Voice-to-agent binding (target design)

Spoken intent routes directly to each bound agent

In the studio binding design, each persona on the line binds to its own working agent seat. A single-speaker floor lock keeps voices from talking over the room, while any irreversible action pauses for an explicit spoken read-back before it runs.

  • Floor design1 speaker at a time
  • Target route< 10 ms to bound seat
  • Safety gateSpoken read-back confirm

02 · Dual-plane event bus & state ledger (target design)

Target: sub-second event doorbells paired with an audited ledger

The target bus design separates speed from auditability: a fast event plane is designed to wake the assigned agent when a turn arrives (replacing polling loops), while an append-only state ledger records every handoff, enforces a design constraint of automatic token scrubbing, and feeds Jev to rank competing versions.

  • Target wakeupEvent doorbell + claim lock (replacing polling loops)
  • Design constraintAutomatic token scrub
  • GatekeeperJev ranks competing drafts

03 · Shared studio canvas & presenter seat (design)

Living cards and isolated screen-share seats

While you speak, Clay, Greg, Jemma and Cody build OmniScripts, FlexCards, Data Mappers and trade-off cards in place on one canvas. For screen-share walkthroughs, the presenter seat (/present/) is designed around a role constraint: screen frames only, with no microphone, audio, or data writes.

  • CanvasIn-place v1 → v2 updates
  • Presenter designScreen-only seat (/present/)
  • Design constraintPresenter view uses no microphone, audio, or data writes

04 · Takt release trains & measured break-it gates

Scheduled release trains with break-it verification

Changes ship on scheduled release trains. Before any train departs, an independent agent reviews the exact version, automated break-it checks (1,457 chair tests and 1,215 break-it checks measured 6 Nov 2026) run against it, and the release guard confirms no live call is interrupted.

  • Target cadenceScheduled release trains
  • Measured (6 Nov)1,457 tests + 1,215 break-it checks
  • Release guardIdle-line check + rollback snapshot

AI agent model

Five defined seats, competing drafts, and one final call

Each AI agent holds one accountable role. Four specialists build and challenge options in parallel, Jev ranks competing versions on a fast decision model, and a person makes every final call.

  1. Seat 01 · Lead

    Clay

    Session lead · implementation & release

    Leads the working session, turns agreed decisions into working Salesforce and web changes, and drives the scheduled release train.

    MandateShips only after independent exact-version review

  2. Seat 02 · Pace

    Greg

    Strategy & decision pace

    Frames the trade-offs, challenges scope creep, and keeps every working session moving toward a concrete decision rather than a growing backlog.

    MandateTurns open questions into clear options

  3. Seat 03 · Design

    Jemma

    Architecture · adversarial reasoning

    Stress-tests system boundaries before code is written and shapes how every diagram, card, and workflow reads for the people using it.

    MandateChallenges assumptions & guards clarity

  4. Seat 04 · Review

    Cody

    Delivery management · test & review

    Writes the automated verification suites and inspects every proposed change at its exact version so no agent ever grades its own homework.

    MandateIndependent review at the exact version

  5. Gatekeeper

    Jev

    TypeSafe System One · ranking engine

    A fast, low-cost decision model that scores and ranks competing versions on a team card so a heavyweight builder model is never the judge.

    MandateObjective scoring across competing drafts

  6. Final Call

    Human decision

    Accountable approval gate

    Every ranked option, architecture trade-off, and release train waits for a person to make the call. No change ships on an agent’s word alone.

    MandatePicks the version to keep & approves release

Multi-agent delivery model

From intent to release, on a fixed cadence

How one idea becomes shipped work: decomposed, dependency-mapped and delivered by an agent fleet working in parallel on scheduled release trains.

01 · Envision

Intent is captured before anything is built

An engagement begins as a concept — a customer website, a portal, an automation. The intent behind it is recorded as a working charter: the outcome sought, the constraints that bound it, and the measures that will say it worked.

What works today

One line, four agents, one shared canvas

  1. 01 · Live conference line

    You talk, the team answers

    You speak, and Clay, Greg, Jemma and Cody answer by voice. Their work lands on a shared canvas while you are still talking.

  2. 02 · Living cards

    Ask for a change, the same card updates

    Say “make it shorter” or “make the logo bolder” and the card already on the canvas changes in place. No new copy to chase.

  3. 03 · Team cards

    Every agent’s version, side by side

    “Everyone, design a logo” gives one card with each agent’s version next to the others. You pick the one to keep.

  4. 04 · Discussion cards

    Pros, cons and a summary

    Ask for a discussion and get the pros and cons with a summary. The agents see each other’s cards and build on them.

Salesforce focus

The agents build OmniStudio pieces, OmniScripts, FlexCards and Data Mappers, in a connected Developer Edition org.

Coming soon
  • Screen-share walkthroughs
  • Projects

Built, reviewed and released by the agents

The build gets stricter as it grows

Done means the person who asked has seen it work. Counts from the build’s own history, as of .

  1. Chair tests

    1,457 about 35× since the first day, 26 Sep

    1. 4226 Sep
    2. 5491 Oct
    3. 1,00315 Oct
    4. 1,1121 Nov
    5. 1,4576 Nov
  2. Break-it checks, every change

    1,215 about 31× since the first day, 26 Sep

    1. 3926 Sep
    2. 3981 Oct
    3. 90215 Oct
    4. 9981 Nov
    5. 1,2156 Nov

    Each breaks one rule on purpose. One uncaught break fails the change.

  3. Changes merged

    90 this week, 2 to 6 Nov · 10 the week before

    1. 32 Nov
    2. 153 Nov
    3. 274 Nov
    4. 255 Nov
    5. 206 Nov

    801 since 1 Sep, across the conference line, the board and this site.

  4. Release gate

    No release starts until every change has:

    • An independent review at the exact version
    • Every automated check green
    • Up to date with the main line

    One release at a time. Deploys check that no call is live and keep a rollback snapshot.

  5. The Integration Gap

    Merged is not done

    1. Built
    2. Reviewed
    3. Deployed
    4. Seen working

    6 Nov: a fix was built, reviewed and deployed in about two hours. Its first live test found one more gap, within minutes, and that is being fixed before it counts as done.

  • Build Cursor agents
  • Integrate and release Clay
  • Review Cody
  • Coordinate Greg
  • Architecture Jemma

Division of Labor

0 taken 0 checked 0 holding chalk
24h · live