Classify automated traffic by what it actually is, flag what it's doing to your measurement, and keep admission rules current as the standards move — a named engineer decides what gets in.
Classifies the signal, not the decision to admit it
In
01
A request arrives with or without a signature, from a declared or spoofed user-agent string.
02
The signature, if any, is checked against the operator it claims — no finalised standard exists yet.
Reason
03
A feed listing is checked against the specific format it targets — schemas aren't interchangeable.
04
Each admission rule configured for the platform is applied to the classified request.
05
A traffic pattern is compared against prior admission decisions and the platform's own logs.
Decide
06
A request whose signal contradicts its declared identity is flagged, never waved through.
07
Every classification, feed gap and admission change is routed to the named engineer, never resolved alone.
Out
08
The signal read, the feed checked and the engineer's decision are retained against the request.
09
Execute write actions only inside the approval boundaries agreed during implementation.
→Product statement
The agent classifies and checks; the named engineer decides what is admitted, and the platform stays accountable for what it lets transact.
Example workflow
One request, signal to admission
AgentHuman
1Request receivedSite visit, checkout hit, feed crawl or an API call carrying an agent signature
2Signal assembledSignature status, declared operator, feed fields touched and traffic history, each with its source
3Classification draftedTraffic class, feed-gap flags, admission recommendation and confidence
4Controls appliedSignature checks, feed-completeness checks, admission-rule checks and confidence threshold
No human action required
Stages 1 to 4 run unaided, and nothing is admitted at any of them — the agent classifies, and the engineer's lane opens at the confidence gate.
5DecisionBranches at the confidence threshold
High confidence
Goes to the named engineer to approve.
Low confidence
Adds a second platform review first.
Engineer review
The classification is held with its signal, its feed flags and the confidence.
Approve · Edit · Escalate
Approved — admission applied▼
6Edge and feed systems updatedOnly where write access and approval policy allow it
7Outcome evaluatedClassification accuracy, feed-gap outcomes, admission history and post-admission corrections
Edits
Every engineer edit is counted in the evaluation.
What should not run autonomously
Human approval stays in control
Outside the boundary — human approval required8 items
Admitting or blocking a class of traffic outright.
Publishing a live agent-readable product feed.
Changing checkout, cart or payment flow.
Declaring a disputed transaction unauthorised.
Automation boundaryAgent acts unaided
✓Classify each request by the signal it actually carries.
✓Check product and inventory data against the feed fields agents read.
✓Track when an admission rule falls behind the published spec version.
✓Flag where agent-mediated traffic lands in your funnel.
Any write happens inside the boundaries agreed at implementation, never ahead of approval.
Certifying the site as agent-ready or standards-compliant.
Verifying that a signed request's purchase was authorised by the user.
Resolving liability for a wrongly transacted order.
Changes to admission rules, feed schema or approval thresholds.
Example output
One request, annotated
Everything the agent classifies is attached to the request it was drawn from.
Agentic-commerce output · single requestIllustrative example
Request
Finding
Signal status
Evidence source
Confidence
Attribution
Checkout API call
Signature present, but the declared operator isn't in the published cohort list
Operator: unmatched
This week's edge log
84%
Engineer name on file
As receivedTaken from this week's edge log and the operator's published cohort.
Signals checkedLive edge request logOperator cohort listFeed field coverage
Why it's flaggedThe signature verifies, but the operator isn't on the published cohort list.
ActionApproveEditEscalate
What the score decidesBelow the configured threshold the flag picks up a second platform review before it.
Value
Where AI adds value
The same four claims, placed at the point in the workflow where each one applies.
Where the value landsValue 01 – 04
Every requestFrom the edge traffic feed
03Classifying
Classify every automated request
Read the signal each request carries against the platform's admission rules and the feed it targets.
01Approved path
An agent is not a bot, yet
Today's invalid-traffic tooling doesn't yet separate a scraper from a legitimate purchasing agent, and the draft the signing layer rests on states on its own face that it has no formal standing in the standards process.
02Human review
Send review to the contested requests
Unmatched signatures, feed gaps and traffic-count anomalies are marked, so the engineer's read starts where risk concentrates.
04Build an evidence trail
The request, the signature it carried and the engineer who admitted it stay on the log.
Integrations
Typical integrations
Five system groups connect to the same agent. Which of them are in scope is decided in discovery.
An overall bot-detection rate can look under control while the misclassification concentrates on one traffic surface. Nestack reports the misclassification rate by surface, not only in total.
Slice performance — reported separately, not only in aggregateIllustrative example
Slice
Failure rate
Lift
Lift vs. threshold
Status
Unsigned automated requests
7.9%
4.0×
Review
Agent traffic on checkout and cart
5.6%
2.9×
Review
Requests carrying a signature
3.4%
1.8×
Watch
Ordinary browser sessions
1.9%
0.7×
Normal
Bar: misclassification rate lift vs. the ordinary-session baseline · scale 0–4.0× · tick marks the 2.0× review threshold2 of 4 slices over threshold
Evidence-linked improvement
The loop closes on a classification, not a hunch
A cycle is closed when the misread agent is a case the next release must survive. That suite is what the next request classified is measured against.
Improvement cycle · five stagesSwitchback — the path turns at Improve and returns at Learn
01Detect
Misclassification rate rises in a traffic slice.
02Diagnose
The purchase that scored as invalid traffic is checked against the signature, the feed and the admission rule until one cause explains it.
03Improve
The change ships against a version, with the requests that exposed it attached.
04Verify
Release is blocked until the affected classification cases pass again.
05Learn
The case joins the standing suite and the admission rules move with it.
Learn → DetectThe return edge. Detection next time runs against a suite one case longer.
Typical build scope
Twelve workstreams across six weeks
The build scope read against the delivery timeline. Week structure follows the six-week plan — discovery, sources, classification workflow, evaluation, integration, then production validation and handover.
WorkstreamWeek 1Week 2Week 3Week 4Week 5Week 6
01Platform discovery and boundary definition and it is logged..
02Edge, feed and analytics source assessment.
03Admission-rule and feed-schema mapping and rule mapping.
04Traffic intake and signal normalisation.
05Classification logic and signature checks.
06Confidence scoring and escalation routing.
07Engineer approval workflow.
08Edge and feed-platform integration.
09Classification regression cases.
10Guardrails and admission controls.
11Request-trail instrumentation.
12Deployment, documentation and Agent Care handover.
12 workstreams · 6 weeks · bar shows the weeks a workstream is active — several run in parallelFinal scope and sequence confirmed in discovery
Engagement tiers
What each tier includes
Rows are the capabilities named in each tier's scope. Higher tiers include everything below them.
Capability✓ in scope · — not at this tierPilotOne surface, one environmentProductionProduction edge and feed accessAdvancedMultiple properties / brands
Introduced at Pilot
Classification against your rules✓✓✓
Engineer approval✓✓✓
Classification baseline✓✓✓
Introduced at Production
Reporting by agent source—✓✓
Escalation workflow in your tools—✓✓
Approved rule updates—✓✓
Edge and feed integration—✓✓
Introduced at Advanced
Multi-standard admission rules——✓
Multi-stage engineer approvals——✓
High request volume——✓
Multi-surface agent controls——✓
Build priceFrom $5,000From $8,000Custom quote
Final build priceConfirmed after discovery based on integrations, workflow complexity, transaction volume, approval controls and deployment requirements.
Separate from buildBuild pricing is separate from recurring Agent Care, which covers managed monitoring, evaluations, incidents and verified improvements after launch.
What we need from you
What you bring, and what we build with it
Each input maps to a piece of build scope and a week in the delivery timeline.
You bringWe build with it
01Your traffic sources and current bot-management setup→Traffic ingestion and signal mappingWeek 1
02Representative logs of admitted and blocked traffic→Classification baseline and signature checksWeek 2
03Your feed schema and admission-rule draft→Admission-rule and feed-schema mappingWeek 1
04Access to relevant APIs, feeds or exports→Edge and feed-platform assessment, then integration setupWeek 2
05Requests you would not want admitted→Signature cases and failure-mode testingWeek 4
06What no request may be trusted on→Confidence scoring, escalation routing, guardrails and approval controlsWeek 3
07Named engineers to review classifications→Engineer approval workflow, then pilot and production validationWeeks 5–6
Nothing else is requiredDeployment, documentation and Agent Care handover are ours.
Delivery timeline
Four phases across six weeks
Each phase sits over the weeks it really occupies, and week 5 carries evaluation alongside the pilot.
PhaseW1W2W3W4W5W6
DiscoveryW1
BuildW2 – W3
EvaluateW4 – W5
Pilot & LaunchW5 – W6
Week focusW1Platform discovery, rule mapping and the automation boundaryW2Source integration and the classification baselineW3Classification workflow, confidence logic and approval controlsW4Evaluation suite, guardrails and failure-mode testingW5Edge and feed integration, pilot traffic and targeted correctionsW6One release cycle run under the platform lead, then Agent Care handover
Reading the bandA bar covers only the weeks its work is named in — the week 5 overlap is real, not padding.
At the end of W6The last checks clear on live traffic and Agent Care picks up monitoring.
DurationSix-week plan shown · typical delivery 4–6 weeks depending on scope confirmed in discovery.
Next step · Advertising AI agent
Build an agentic-commerce readiness agent around your platform's admission rules.
Show us your traffic logs, your product feed and who owns admission changes. Was that request a shopper's agent or a scraper — we'll classify it against the signal it actually carried, and name what stays with the named engineer.
