Autonomous Agent Team Case Study: 61 demos and 50+ qualified leads.
Spark plans, Pixel designs, Ledger validates performance, Sentinel enforces guardrails, and Rook ships. The five-agent system delivered measurable outcomes while preserving review quality.
61
Product demos shipped
50+
Qualified leads generated
5
Specialist agents in production
Results verified with delivery metrics
Metrics were tracked through sprint dashboards and validated before handoff.
61 demos shipped
Daily prototypes moved from brief to reviewed output with Spark and Rook handoffs.
50+ qualified leads
Ledger attribution and Pixel conversion variants increased qualified pipeline flow.
5-agent delivery loop
Spark, Pixel, Ledger, Sentinel, and Rook each own one bounded part of execution.
Architecture diagram
Signal flows through Spark, Pixel, Ledger, Sentinel, and Rook.
Every handoff has an explicit contract. Sentinel blocks unsafe changes and Ledger validates metric integrity before Rook publishes.
Sentinel🛡️
|
Spark💡 --> Pixel🎨 --> Rook⚡
| | ^
v v |
Ledger📊 ----+---------+Spark
Turns raw goals into prioritized experiments and stories.
- Input
- Lead notes, funnel gaps, and product constraints
- Output
- Sprint briefs, acceptance criteria, and test prompts
Pixel
Builds layout systems and visual variants for every campaign.
- Input
- Spark plans and positioning angles
- Output
- Landing sections, copy variants, and UI polish tickets
Ledger
Tracks impact and protects metric integrity across channels.
- Input
- Session events, CRM fields, and attribution signals
- Output
- Dashboards, alert thresholds, and quality audits
Sentinel
Guards risk, validates assumptions, and enforces guardrails.
- Input
- Draft output from all agents
- Output
- Security checks, policy feedback, and rollback plans
Rook
Executes high-leverage workflows and publishes approved changes.
- Input
- Approved tasks from Spark, Pixel, Ledger, and Sentinel
- Output
- Production deploys, campaign sends, and follow-up tasks
Git commit timestamps used as production proof
Commit records below capture core architecture and SEO work that supported this case study narrative.
| Commit | Timestamp | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| 981b6837 | 2026-02-09T20:06:44+11:00 | feat(agentic-development): recover sprint proof and process narrative |
| 1982027b | 2026-02-09T20:19:00+11:00 | feat(routes): add legacy route handoff to agentic development |
| 7d085aa4 | 2026-02-10T08:15:06+11:00 | fix(seo): expand sitemap coverage and add agentic SEO plan |
| a9635d01 | 2026-02-10T09:15:16+11:00 | feat(seo): case studies + educational deep-dives — agent team, overnight builds, frameworks, tools, lifecycle |
FAQ
This model pairs well with the overnight build delivery rhythm and the full agentic development lifecycle.
Why run a five-agent architecture instead of one super-agent?
How do you keep output quality consistent at higher velocity?
What is the fastest way to pilot this setup?
What proof data confirms these outcomes are real?
Next step
Build your own multi-agent delivery loop.
If you want this architecture adapted to your stack, we can scope a pilot and ship the first workflow in one sprint.