Safety-Compliance AI Agent for SWMS & Permits

What this agent does

Finds the gaps; it does not write the SWMS

Watch package scopes, submitted SWMS, permits and expiry registers as they arrive.

Diff the scope wording against the high-risk-work limbs of the regime set for the project.

Reason

Flag each scope that matches a limb, citing the limb, for a person to classify.

Diff a submitted SWMS against the mandatory-content list: hazards, controls, monitoring and review.

Flag controls that name no implementable step, and controls the site conditions do not support.

Decide

Watch licence, ticket, induction and permit expiry against the named owner for each.

Route every finding to the duty-holder's nominated signatory, not to a head-contractor approver.

Out

Assemble the retention pack — versions, permits, consultation records — against the statutory clocks.

Execute write actions only inside the approval boundaries agreed during implementation.

→ Product statement

The agent lists gaps; the PCBU carrying out the work signs the SWMS — and if a defective one was used, only that duty-holder stops the work and re-consults.

Example workflow

One HRCW package, scope to sign-off

AgentHuman

1Scope of works receivedPackage scope, site conditions, a submitted SWMS or a permit request

2Jurisdiction resolvedThe regime set for the project — a model-WHS state, Victoria's OHS Regulations, OSHA or EM 385-1-1

3Gaps listedMatched limbs, missing mandatory content, expiries and confidence

4Controls appliedJurisdiction gate, mandatory-content checks, expiry checks and confidence threshold

No human action required

Stages 1 to 4 run unaided, and nothing is classified or signed at any of them — the agent is listing gaps, and the reviewer's lane opens at the confidence gate.

5DecisionBranches at the confidence threshold

High confidence

Goes to the sub's nominated signatory.

Low confidence

Adds a site safety read first.

Duty-holder review

The finding is held with the limb cited, the site conditions and the confidence.

Accept · Dispute · Return to subcontractor

Accepted — back with the duty-holder▼

6Safety systems updatedOnly where write access and approval policy allow it

7Outcome evaluatedGaps upheld, disputed findings, permit interfaces and defects found after use on site

Disputes

Every disputed finding is counted in the evaluation.

What should not run autonomously

Human approval stays in control

Outside the boundary — human approval required8 items

Deciding whether work is high risk construction work.

Authoring or adopting the SWMS as the duty-holder.

Conducting the consultation with workers and the HSR.

Issuing, signing or cancelling a confined space permit.

Automation boundaryAgent acts unaided

✓Flag scopes whose wording matches a high-risk-work limb, for a person to classify.

✓Diff a submitted SWMS against the mandatory-content list.

✓Watch licence, induction, ticket and permit expiry dates.

✓Assemble the retention pack against the statutory clocks for the configured regime.

Any write happens inside the boundaries agreed at implementation, and never onto a signed document.

Judging a person competent, qualified or licensed.

Stopping work, and authorising its resumption.

Approving an AHA at the required authority level.

Closing out a hazard or non-conformance item.

Example output

One flagged scope, annotated

Everything the agent raises is attached to the scope it was read from.

Gap finding · single scopeIllustrative example

Package

Scope line

Matched limb

Finding

Confidence

Jurisdiction

Excavation subcontractor

Trenching beside a live gas main

r.291(i)

No control named for the main

91%

Model WHS — NSW

As receivedTaken from the package scope and the site conditions on file — nothing here is written by the agent.

What was checked Package scope wording Site services drawing Submitted SWMS version

Why this findingThe limb is cited from the regime set for this site, and a person decides it.

ActionAcceptDisputeReturn to subcontractor

What the score decidesBelow the threshold the finding picks up a site safety read before the signatory.

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 scope of worksFrom the package and the site

03Gap check

Apply the regime for the project

No national rule exists — model-WHS limbs, Victoria's own OHS list, or a US site where a JHA is not mandatory.

01Approved path

Find the gaps before the crew

Routine mandatory-content gaps are listed before the document is signed.

02Human review

Send review to the risky scopes

Compound limbs and low-confidence findings are marked, so the reviewer starts where risk concentrates.

04Build an evidence trail

Each version, the consultation record and the reviewer stay with the document.

Integrations

Typical integrations

Five system groups connect to the same agent. Which of them are in scope is decided in discovery.

Safety and site operationsHammerTech · SafetyCulture
SWMS, permit and induction modules

Workforce and competencyDamstra · Assignar
Rapid Global · Pegasus

Project systems of recordProcore · Autodesk Construction Cloud
Document control and registers

Agent

Safety compliance — SWMS & permits

Reads the scope
Lists the gaps
Holds for the signatory

Registers and permitsRegulator HRCW registers
Permit-to-work systems

Observability & evaluationOpenTelemetry · Langfuse
Supported monitoring/evaluation sources

Integration availability depends on the client's existing systems and API access.

Agent controls

Six layers between the model and the crew

Each control wraps the one inside it. What a layer does not catch is named in the failure-mode map below it.

L6 · Outermost — last line of defenceInward → L1 · closest to the model

L6Rollback / safe modePull the agent back to gap-listing only when evaluation or production signals degrade.Roll back

L5Version monitoringTrack model, prompt, template and jurisdiction-configuration changes.Track

L4TraceabilityRecord the version, the limb cited, the reviewer and the closure decision behind each item.Record

L3Duty-holder reviewHold findings for the named signatory; it governs release, not whether the signed document is sound.Gate

L2Policy guardrailsTest findings against the configured regime and the mandatory-content list; a failure returns the finding.Restrict

L1Confidence thresholdsRoute low-confidence findings to a site safety read before the signatory sees them.Require review

Model coreFinding produced — matched limbs, missing content, expiries and confidence

L1 – L2Test whether a finding may stand

L3Puts the decision in the signatory's hands

L4 – L5Show what changed, and when it was consulted on

L6Narrows the agent to gap-finding when signals degrade

How Nestack evaluates it

Evaluate the compliance workflow — not only the finished document.

Coverage runs the whole depth of the workflow, and every layer is cut by slice.

Surface — the document the crew works to

Depth of coverage ▼

E1Final-output evaluationDid each cited limb match the regime set for the project?

E2Step-level evaluationDid the agent use the right site conditions, regime and template version?

E3Tool evaluationDid it read and write the correct package and the correct register?

E4Confidence calibrationDo low-confidence findings actually attract more reviewer disputes?

E5Slice evaluationHow does performance change across specific work types?

E6Business outcomeHow many documents needed rework, or a defect found after use on site?

Floor — the trail the controlling employer relies on

Failure modes

Where each failure originates in the agent

Seven failure modes, each placed at the stage where it starts.

Agent lifecycleDirection of processing →

01 · Retrieval1 mode

WM-01

Wrong jurisdiction's list

Melbourne site checked against model-WHS limbs, not Victoria's.

Stage gathersScopes, submitted SWMS and the configured regime

02 · Reasoning2 modes

WM-02

Negative HRCW call

A shallow trench is read as non-HRCW, ignoring the live-services limb.

WM-03

Control with no method

“PPE and take care” is accepted as a control measure.

Stage proposesMatched limbs, missing content and confidence

03 · Tool / write2 modes

WM-04

Permit pre-filled

A permit is populated from the prior shift's atmospheric results.

WM-05

Bulk closure on archive

Open toolbox and hazard items are closed in bulk, ending the trail.

Stage writesOnly where write access and approval policy allow it

04 · Output1 mode

WM-06

Unusable reading level

The crew cannot read the document they must work to.

Stage returnsThe gap list the signatory reads before signing

05 · Change / Version1 mode

WM-07

Silent template rewrite

An update rewrites controls on in-force SWMS with no reconsult.

Stage tracksModel, prompt, template and jurisdiction config

Sev-1 · a held act performed by the agent Sev-2 · a defective document reaches the crew Sev-3 · source degrades, finding routes to review

See the complete Construction failure-mode catalogue →

Affected slices

A safe average can sit on one bad cohort

Split the SWMS-defect rate and the cohort carrying it names itself — mixed jurisdictions, first-time subcontractors, compound scopes. Nestack reports the rate by slice, not only in total.

Slice performance — reported separately, not only in aggregateIllustrative example

Slice	Failure rate	Lift	Status
Mixed-jurisdiction portfolios	8.6%	3.9×	Review
First-time HRCW subcontractors	6.6%	3.0×	Review
Repeat HRCW, established sub	3.3%	1.5×	Watch
Single-hazard, template-mature	1.1%	0.5×	Normal

Bar: SWMS-defect-rate lift vs. an all-SWMS baseline · scale 0–4.0× · tick marks the 2.0× review threshold 2 of 4 slices over threshold

Evidence-linked improvement

A cycle is not closed until a test exists

A cycle is done when the failure has become a test the next release has to survive.

Improvement cycle · five stagesSwitchback — the path turns at Improve and returns at Learn

01Detect

SWMS-defect rate rises in a work-type slice.

02Diagnose

The defective document and the gap list behind it are read back until the cause narrows to one.

03Improve

Version-stamp the change and attach the documents that exposed it.

04Verify

The affected cases run again, and a fail stops the release.

05Learn

It becomes a standing test, and the document template changes with it.

Learn → DetectThe return edge. The next detection runs against a suite one case larger.

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, compliance workflow, evaluation, integration, then production validation and handover.

Workstream Week 1Week 2Week 3Week 4Week 5Week 6

01Safety workflow discovery and boundary definition.

02Safety and workforce source assessment.

03Jurisdiction, HRCW-limb and permit-rule mapping.

04Scope and document ingestion.

05Limb matching and content-diff logic.

06Confidence scoring and finding routing.

07Duty-holder review workflow.

08Safety and project-system integration.

09Document-defect regression cases.

10Guardrails and duty-holder controls.

11Consultation-trail instrumentation.

12Deployment, documentation and Agent Care handover.

12 workstreams · 6 weeks · bar shows the weeks a workstream is active — several run in parallel Final 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 tier PilotOne site, one jurisdiction ProductionProduction safety systems AdvancedMultiple sites / jurisdictions

Introduced at Pilot

Gap findings against your regime✓✓✓

Duty-holder review✓✓✓

Document-defect baseline✓✓✓

Introduced at Production

Reporting by HRCW class—✓✓

Review workflow in your systems—✓✓

Approved write-back—✓✓

Regulator-pack export—✓✓

Introduced at Advanced

Mixed-jurisdiction portfolios——✓

Multi-stage principal-contractor review——✓

High document volume——✓

Enterprise WHS controls——✓

Build price From $5,000 From $8,000 Custom quote

Final build priceConfirmed after discovery based on integrations, workflow complexity, document 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 jurisdictions and the sites they cover → Jurisdiction gate and HRCW-limb mappingWeek 1

02Representative signed SWMS and permits → Gap-check baseline, limb matching and mandatory-content diffWeek 2

03Your permit set and competency requirements → Permit-interface mapping and automation-boundary definitionWeek 1

04Access to relevant APIs, feeds or exports → Safety, workforce and project system assessment, then integration setupWeek 2

05Packages where the document missed something on site → Document-defect cases and failure-mode testingWeek 4

06What must reach a duty holder before anything is signed → Confidence scoring, finding routing, guardrails and approval controlsWeek 3

07Named signatories to review the findings → Duty-holder review workflow, then pilot and production validationWeeks 5–6

Nothing else is required Deployment, documentation and Agent Care handover are ours.

Delivery timeline

Four phases across six weeks

Each phase is drawn across the weeks it really occupies. Week 5 carries evaluation and pilot at the same time.

Phase W1W2W3W4W5W6

Discovery W1

Build W2 – W3

Evaluate W4 – W5

Pilot & Launch W5 – W6

Week focus W1Safety workflow discovery, jurisdiction mapping and the automation boundary W2Source integration and the gap-check baseline W3Limb matching, confidence logic and review controls W4Evaluation suite, guardrails and failure-mode testing W5Project-system integration, pilot packages and targeted corrections W6One HRCW package run under the PCBU's own review, then handover

Reading the bandEach bar covers the weeks its work is named in and no others. The week 5 overlap is real, not padding.

At the end of W6The last checks clear on live documents and monitoring moves to Agent Care.

DurationSix-week plan shown · typical delivery 4–6 weeks depending on scope confirmed in discovery.

Next step · Construction AI agent

Build a safety-compliance agent around your duty-holders.

Show us your jurisdictions, your HRCW scopes and your permit interfaces. The signatory for the PCBU carrying out the work stays the author — we map what the agent hands them, and what it never touches.

Discuss this agent →

Nestack Agents · Safety compliance, SWMS and permitsAGT-CN-02 · Agent Care available after launch