THE AGENTIC USER IS HERE

Your product has a new user.
You don't know how it behaves yet.

AI agents are already discovering, comparing, calling, buying from and operating software. We reproduce those journeys inside your product, expose the moments that lose the business, change the environment, and verify the result with controlled experiments.

▷ See how it works
No account required · deterministic demo · five agent failure patterns
THE EXPERIMENT LAB

One experiment.
Five failure patterns.

EXPLORE A FAILURE PATTERN
SIMULATION TRACE / ILLUSTRATIVE DATA
THE SIMULATION CONTRACTPRICING-017
/goal
Choose the best enterprise plan for a 500-seat customer.
/guardrails
Use published terms. Respect eligibility. Never invent discounts.
/evaluate
Correct plan, effective annual price, defensible recommendation.
AGENT ENVIRONMENT / PRICING & CONVERSIONREADY
AGENT_042GPT-5.6 · browser · search · api
AGENT CONVERSION31%
REVENUE AT RISK / MO$18.4k
AGENT PATHS256
OUTCOMECOMPETITOR WINS
READY · Click “Simulate my product” to run the agent.
TASK / WAITING
$ useragent simulate --scenario pricing
Agent conversion31%
Revenue at risk / mo$18.4k
Agent paths256
OutcomeCompetitor wins
EvaluationBASELINE
FIVE FAILURE PATTERNS

Different failures. One
repeatable experiment.

ILLUSTRATIVE EXPERIMENT / PRICING-017

The agent needs a price. Your pricing page gives it a sales funnel.

The agent has clear buying intent. The competitor publishes seat bands, eligibility and effective prices; your page leaves key terms ambiguous.

HOW IT FITS THE PRODUCTONE CLOSED-LOOP EXPERIMENT
01MODELDefine the agent + task
→
02SIMULATEReproduce the failure
→
03EVALUATEScore against contract
→
04MUTATETest a candidate change
→
05VERIFYRe-run + compare evidence

01 · BEFORE / LOST

Agent conversion31%
Revenue at risk / mo$18.4k
Whyprice not determinable
→ AGENT SELECTS COMPETITOR / explicit effective price

02 · OPTIMIZATION

CANDIDATE #12
Expose machine-readable pricing semantics.

Seat bands · minimums · annual/monthly terms · eligibility · effective price.

Changedpricing + schema
Human UIunchanged
Populationsame 256 agents
→ RE-SIMULATE / same buying intent

03 · AFTER / DEMO VERIFIED

Agent conversion68% +37pp
Revenue recovered / mo$21.9k
Decision latency−54%
✓ DEMO VERIFIED / competitor no longer wins on missing information
ILLUSTRATIVE EXPERIMENT / DISCOVERY-009

Your answer exists. The agent finds the competitor first.

Support content is fragmented and ambiguous. The competitor publishes one canonical, quotable answer.

HOW IT FITS THE PRODUCTONE CLOSED-LOOP EXPERIMENT
01MODELDefine the agent + task
→
02SIMULATEReproduce the failure
→
03EVALUATEScore against contract
→
04MUTATETest a candidate change
→
05VERIFYRe-run + compare evidence

01 · BEFORE / LOST

Recommendation share19%
Agent citations7%
Pipeline influenced / mo$27k
→ COMPETITOR GETS RECOMMENDED / clearer evidence wins

02 · OPTIMIZATION

CANDIDATE #44
Collapse fragmented answers into canonical evidence.

Explicit claims · comparison-ready facts · stable URLs · support/version context.

Changeddocs + support corpus
Human readingunchanged
Evaluationrecommendation + citation
→ RE-SIMULATE / same questions, same agents

03 · AFTER / DEMO VERIFIED

Recommendation share51% +32pp
Agent citations34% +27pp
Pipeline influenced / mo$63k
✓ DEMO VERIFIED / same question, different evidence surface
ILLUSTRATIVE EXPERIMENT / UX-031

The human workflow works. The agent is being charged in clicks.

A customer wants a board-ready revenue report. A person moves through filters, date pickers, exports and formatting screens. An agent can do the same work as one explicit capability—if you give it one.

HOW IT FITS THE PRODUCTONE CLOSED-LOOP EXPERIMENT
01MODELDefine the agent + task
→
02SIMULATEReproduce the failure
→
03EVALUATEScore against contract
→
04MUTATETest a candidate change
→
05VERIFYRe-run + compare evidence

01 · BEFORE / LEAK

Work units completed42%
Agent calls / report14
Revenue leakage / mo$11.7k
→ AGENT ABANDONS / the human interface exposes the wrong unit of work

02 · OPTIMIZATION

CANDIDATE #31
Expose the business outcome, not the navigation.

One agent action: generate_report. Explicit inputs, deterministic output, scoped permissions and a machine-readable receipt.

Human workflowunchanged
Agent workflow14 calls → 2
New billable unitreport generated
→ RE-SIMULATE / same report demand

03 · AFTER / DEMO VERIFIED

Work units completed91% +49pp
Agent calls / report2 −86%
Revenue recovered / mo$24.6k
✓ DEMO VERIFIED / the product now exposes a capability agents can execute
ILLUSTRATIVE EXPERIMENT / METERING-008

The agent is using your product. Your billing system still thinks it is one human seat.

Once an agent can execute a capability directly, the business can see the work as discrete demand instead of pretending it is another human seat. That creates a measurable unit to price, optimize and scale.

HOW IT FITS THE PRODUCTONE CLOSED-LOOP EXPERIMENT
01MODELDefine the agent + task
→
02SIMULATEReproduce the failure
→
03EVALUATEScore against contract
→
04MUTATETest a candidate change
→
05VERIFYRe-run + compare evidence

01 · BEFORE / INVISIBLE

Agent jobs / mo18,400
Captured revenue$0.00 / job
Compute + API cost / mo$9.8k
→ HUMAN PLAN / agent workload is bundled, unmeasured and economically opaque

02 · OPTIMIZATION

CANDIDATE #08
Turn completed agent work into a billable unit.

Task-level capability · usage receipt · predictable unit price · human plan unchanged.

Unitcompleted task
Price$0.14 / task
Evaluationmargin + completion
→ RE-SIMULATE / same agent demand

03 · AFTER / DEMO VERIFIED

Billable jobs / mo18,400
Agent revenue / mo$2.58k
Net contribution / mo+$1.77k
✓ DEMO VERIFIED / usage becomes a measurable product surface
ILLUSTRATIVE EXPERIMENT / INHOUSE-026

Your agent doesn't have a knowledge problem. It has an authority problem.

Internal playbooks repeat the same policy in different words, contradict one another across versions, and bury the one source an agent should trust. The result is wasted tool calls, wrong decisions and silent escalation.

HOW IT FITS THE PRODUCTONE CLOSED-LOOP EXPERIMENT
01MODELDefine the agent + task
→
02SIMULATEReproduce the failure
→
03EVALUATEScore against contract
→
04MUTATETest a candidate change
→
05VERIFYRe-run + compare evidence

01 · BEFORE / DRIFT

Correct decisions54%
Wasted tool calls / job4.7
Tool spend / mo$6.4k
→ CONFLICTING DOCS / stale instructions trigger retries, broad searches and wrong tools

02 · OPTIMIZATION

CANDIDATE #26
Compress the knowledge surface and make authority explicit.

Detect duplicates · resolve conflicts · mark canonical sources · attach version/effective-date context · route paid tools only when needed.

Knowledge graph1 canonical answer
Tool policydiscover → inspect → run
Billingper successful call
→ RE-SIMULATE / same internal task set

03 · AFTER / DEMO VERIFIED

Correct decisions91% +37pp
Wasted tool calls / job1.2 −74%
Tool spend / mo$2.1k −67%
✓ DEMO VERIFIED / agents use the shortest authoritative path and pay only when work is done
THE THESIS

Stop optimizing
what agents did.

Start optimizing
what agents can do.

Analytics can show where agents went. Visibility tools can show what they cited. The missing step is experimentation: change what the agent encounters, run the same task again, and measure whether the business outcome actually moved.

THE ECONOMIC SHIFT

Agents don't behave like seats.
They consume capabilities.

14retrievals
6API calls
3retries
1successful transaction
$0.31/ successful task

A human might buy $49/month. An agent might generate a completely different usage profile: retrievals, tool calls, retries, tokens and infrastructure load.

Your existing pricing model may have no idea what your new users actually consume.

Simulate the demand before you price it.

USAGE / TASK · TOKENS · FAN-OUT · COST · LATENCY · CONVERSION
1P / 3P

Test agents you own.
Test agents you don't.

1P · YOU CONTROL
Your internal agents→
Customer-facing agents→
Autonomous workflows→
Agents built on your stack→
3P · YOU DON'T
ChatGPT↗
Claude / Codex↗
Clay + other agentic tools↗
Whatever comes next↗

You control one side of the ecosystem. We give you a controlled way to test the other—and design for behavior you cannot dictate.

FROM EXPERIMENT TO SHIP

From simulation to
a change you can defend.

THE OUTPUT IS NOT A REPORT

It is a verified change with evidence attached.

A winning candidate leaves the loop with evidence: what changed, which agents tested it, what moved, what it cost to make the change, and where the result can be reproduced.

01 · OBSERVE

Agent traces

See the path, the evidence, the work attempted and the exact moment the business outcome is lost.

TRACE / FAILURE / CAUSE
02 · CHANGE

Optimization candidates

Turn the failure into a concrete change: content, interface, API, policy, knowledge structure or pricing surface.

CANDIDATE / DIFF / TRADEOFF
03 · VERIFY

Controlled evidence

Re-run the same task against the same population and compare the business metric—not a model's opinion.

BEFORE / AFTER / SIGNIFICANCE
04 · SHIP

Verified delta ✓

Ship with the winning change, measured upside, operational trade-offs and an experiment trace your team can inspect.

✓ READY TO SHIP
YOUR NEXT USER DOESN'T THINK IN CLICKS
SIMULATEOPTIMIZEVERIFYSHIP

Don't guess how agents experience your product. Experiment. Improve. Prove it.

Design an agent experiment →
REAL ENVIRONMENT CONNECTORS · COMING SOON · founder@useragent.tech