Agent Board Reporting

Agent board reporting

Board reporting fails in two directions: a scramble that produces inconsistent numbers, or a polished narrative that quietly omits what went wrong. Agents fix the first reliably and can worsen the second, so this desk is built around a check that specifically hunts for omission.

Team

• Metrics assembler (saas-metrics, product-metrics): pulls the standing metric set from source and computes movement.
• Narrator (status-updates): drafts the commentary against the numbers.
• Fact checker: verifies every figure back to source and flags any claim without one.
• Omission checker: asks what a well-informed sceptic would want to know that the draft does not say.

Shape: assemble, draft, then two independent checks before human review.

Method

1. Fix the metric set in advance and keep it stable. Changing which metrics appear between periods is how reporting loses credibility. If a metric is dropped, say so and why.
2. Compute from source every period. Never carry a number forward from the last deck, because that is how an error survives four quarters.
3. Write commentary that explains movement. Each material change needs a cause, and where the cause is unknown, saying so is stronger than a plausible story.
4. Run the omission check as a separate pass. Its only job is to find the missing bad news: the metric that stalled, the churned account, the missed milestone. Fold it into drafting and it stops working (see agent-red-team-blue-team).
5. Separate fact from forecast visibly. Actuals, forecast, and aspiration are three different things, and blurring them is the failure that damages trust permanently.
6. Keep the ask explicit. What the board is being asked to decide, approve, or help with, stated plainly rather than implied.
7. Version the pack with its source snapshot. Later questions should be answerable against exactly what was reported.

Run it

In Claude Code, run the assembler over exported data into a metrics file, the narrator over that file, then the fact checker and omission checker as separate subagents writing findings the human reads alongside the draft. Nothing goes to a board without human sign-off. Port to LangGraph with two verification nodes that can return the draft for rework.

Signals it works

• Every number traces to source, recomputed this period.
• The omission check regularly finds something the draft had softened.
• Actuals and forecasts are never presented in the same shape.

Boundaries

Agents assemble and draft; the accountable human owns what is communicated to investors and directors. Statements to investors carry legal weight, and misstatement has consequences that no drafting process transfers to a tool. Forward-looking statements, valuations, and financial statements need qualified review.