process-audit-worksheet

name	process-audit-worksheet
description	Walks through auditing any CS process for agent-readiness by classifying each step as requiring human judgment (HUMAN) or suitable for agent execution (AGENT). Quantifies the production vs. judgment split and identifies the highest-value automation opportunities. Use when asked to audit a process, assess agent-readiness, classify workflow steps, evaluate what can be automated, or when a CS leader wants to understand how much of a process could be handled by agents. Also triggers for questions about process automation assessment, agent-human classification, workflow audit, operational efficiency analysis, or the agent-ready process model.
license	MIT
metadata	{"author":"Stephen Rogan","version":"1.0.0","standalone":true}

Process Audit Worksheet

Audits any CS process by classifying every step as AGENT (can be automated) or HUMAN (requires judgment). The most important operational assessment a CS team can run -- it reveals how much of the CSM's week is spent on work that does not require their expertise.

The governing insight: most CS processes were designed when the only execution engine was a person. Every step carries human time cost regardless of whether it requires human thinking. This audit separates the two.

How to Use

Provide any CS process in step-by-step form:

• Onboarding workflow, renewal timeline, QBR preparation, escalation protocol, check-in cadence, health review, reporting cycle, handoff sequence -- any documented or undocumented process
• For each step: what happens, who does it, how long it takes, and what judgment (if any) is required

The Classification Framework

Step 1: List Every Step

Write out every step in the process, including the ones nobody documents because "everyone knows" them. The undocumented steps are often the most time-consuming.

Step 2: Classify Each Step

For each step, apply the classification test:

The test: If an agent executed this step to a consistent standard using available data, would a senior CSM approve the output without modification?

Classification	Criteria	Examples
AGENT	Step requires no judgment. Follows a defined rule, uses available data, produces a predictable output	Data pulls, CRM updates, email templates, scheduling, report formatting, status tracking, notification sending, field computation
HUMAN	Step requires expertise, relationship awareness, strategic thinking, or emotional intelligence	Customer diagnosis, strategic recommendations, escalation decisions, relationship judgment, negotiation, save play design, political navigation
HUMAN+	Step is primarily human but agent-prepared context would significantly improve quality or speed	QBR recommendations (agent assembles data, human writes the strategy), health assessment (agent computes score, human validates and interprets)

Step 3: Apply the Pressure Test

The instinct is to classify too many steps as HUMAN. For each HUMAN classification, pressure-test:

Pressure Test Question	If Yes	If No
Could an agent do this with a clear rule and available data?	Reclassify as AGENT	Confirm as HUMAN
Is the "judgment" actually just pattern matching that could be encoded?	Reclassify as AGENT with rules	Confirm as HUMAN
Would a template with variable data fields produce an acceptable output?	Reclassify as AGENT	Confirm as HUMAN
Does the step require understanding the customer's emotional state, political dynamics, or relationship history?	Confirm as HUMAN	Consider AGENT with human review
Does the step involve deciding between options where the right answer depends on context an agent cannot access?	Confirm as HUMAN	Consider AGENT

Step 4: Quantify the Split

Metric	Calculation
Total steps	Count of all steps in the process
AGENT steps	Count classified as AGENT
HUMAN steps	Count classified as HUMAN
HUMAN+ steps	Count classified as HUMAN+
Agent density	(AGENT + 0.5 * HUMAN+) / Total steps
Time on AGENT steps	Sum of estimated time for all AGENT-classified steps
Time on HUMAN steps	Sum of estimated time for all HUMAN-classified steps
Time reclamation potential	Time currently spent by humans on AGENT-classified steps

Typical results: Most CS processes are 60-80% AGENT-classifiable. That means 60-80% of the time a CSM spends on that process is on work that does not require their judgment.

Output Format

## Process Audit: [Process Name]
**Audited by:** [name] | **Date:** [date]
**Total steps:** [n] | **Agent density:** [%]

### Step-by-Step Classification
| # | Step | Classification | Time (min) | Rationale |
|---|------|---------------|-----------|-----------|
| 1 | [step] | [AGENT/HUMAN/HUMAN+] | [minutes] | [why this classification] |
| 2 | [step] | [AGENT/HUMAN/HUMAN+] | [minutes] | [why] |

### Summary
| Category | Steps | Time/Cycle | % of Process |
|----------|-------|-----------|-------------|
| AGENT | [n] | [min] | [%] |
| HUMAN | [n] | [min] | [%] |
| HUMAN+ | [n] | [min] | [%] |

### Time Reclamation
If AGENT steps were automated: [hours/week] freed per CSM per cycle
Across a team of [n] CSMs: [hours/week] total

### Priority Automation Candidates
1. [Step X]: [time/cycle] * [frequency] = highest time recovery
2. [Step Y]: [rationale]
3. [Step Z]: [rationale]

### Human Decision Points
The [n] steps that must remain human:
1. [Step]: [why human judgment is required]
2. [Step]: [why]

Quality Gates

• Did you list every step, including the undocumented ones? Most processes have 3-5 steps that "everyone just knows" but that consume significant time. If your audit has fewer than 10 steps for a major process, you are missing steps
• Did you pressure-test the HUMAN classifications? If more than 40% of steps are classified HUMAN, either the process involves unusually high judgment content or the classifications are too conservative. Pressure-test each one
• Is the time estimate per step realistic? CSMs often underestimate how long production steps take because the time is distributed across the day in small increments. 5 minutes of CRM updating * 20 accounts = 100 minutes, not "a few minutes"
• Are the priority automation candidates ranked by impact, not by ease? The highest-impact automation is often not the easiest. Rank by (time saved * frequency), not by implementation simplicity

Principles

• The audit is a diagnostic, not a judgment. A process that is 80% AGENT-classifiable is not a bad process. It was a good process designed for the only execution engine available at the time: a person. The audit reveals the opportunity to upgrade the delivery mechanism
• HUMAN steps are where the CSM earns their seat. The 20-30% of steps that require judgment, relationship awareness, and strategic thinking are the most valuable activities a CSM performs. The audit protects these steps by freeing time from the 70-80% that do not require them
• Agent density is the business case metric. When a CS leader needs to justify an investment in automation, the audit provides the data: "Our QBR process has 24 steps. 18 are AGENT-classifiable, consuming 3.5 hours per cycle. Across 40 accounts per CSM, that is 140 hours per quarter of work that does not require judgment"
• Start with your highest-volume process. The audit has the most impact on processes that run frequently (check-in cadence, health reviews) or that consume the most time per cycle (QBR preparation, renewal workflows). Audit the expensive processes first