AI Act Readiness for Agentic Workflows

Common challenges

Standard AI checklists don’t account for agents that take real-world actions

Telling when autonomous workflows cross into the Act’s high-risk tier

Wrapping a third-party model into an agent can quietly make you a provider

Article 14 oversight and Article 12 logging are hard to apply to fast-chaining agents

Our approach

Workflow mapping

For each agent or automated workflow: what it does, what tools and actions it can trigger (sending messages, moving money, changing records, calling external systems), and how much it decides without a human.

Risk-tier classification

Where each workflow lands under the Act, with attention to high-risk uses that autonomy can push you into — and the prohibited-practice lines an acting agent can cross.

Human-oversight review (Article 14)

The control points, approvals, and stop/override mechanisms your agents need, and where today’s design leaves a person unable to intervene in time.

Transparency & disclosure (Article 50)

Where users and affected third parties must be told they’re dealing with an AI agent, including agents acting on someone’s behalf.

Logging & traceability (Article 12)

What agent actions you need to record to show what happened and why.

Role & dependency check

Whether wrapping a general-purpose model into an agent makes you a provider, and which GPAI-linked obligations follow.

The deliverable

A workflow-by-workflow readiness checklist plus a prioritised gap report, in plain language your engineering team can act on.

Who it’s for

Teams shipping AI agents, copilots, and autonomous workflows — agentic SaaS, AI-native products, and any company giving an LLM the ability to take real-world actions. Especially relevant if your agents operate in a high-risk domain (hiring, credit, healthcare, critical services) or can act with little human review.

How it works

1. Walk us through your agents — what they do, what they can trigger, and where a human sits in the loop.

2. We assess each workflow against the Act’s obligations, focusing on the autonomy-driven risks.

3. You get the checklist and gap report within an agreed timeframe — ready to hand to your engineering team.

FAQ

Does the EU AI Act treat agentic AI differently?

The Act doesn’t have a separate “agent” category — but autonomy, tool use, and the ability to act change how its existing rules apply to you. Higher autonomy tends to mean higher risk, stricter human-oversight expectations, and more to log. We assess your agents against the rules as they actually apply.

Our agents are built on a third-party model — are we still responsible?

Usually yes. Deploying agents based on someone else’s model still brings obligations, and turning a general-purpose model into an agent can make you a provider in your own right. We map which role you hold and what follows from it.

What makes this different from your general AI Act Readiness assessment?

Scope and focus. The general assessment covers any AI product; this one is built around agentic behaviour — tool use, autonomous actions, human-in-the-loop gaps, and action logging — which standard checklists tend to under-examine.

See where your agents stand

Get the Agentic Readiness Checklist