Use case
Use case3 min readBy The Data Workers Team

Program oversight data, run by agents

Program data comes from states, contractors and legacy systems in different layouts, and oversight reports lag by quarters. Here is how Data Workers runs it instead.

Key takeaways

  • •The problem today. Program data comes from states, contractors and legacy systems in different layouts, and oversight reports lag by quarters.
  • •What changes. Agents map every partner file, check completeness and keep program metrics current with lineage.
  • •What stays with your people. Published findings: they carry public trust.
  • •The result. Oversight reports run on current, documented data.

The problem today

Program data comes from states, contractors and legacy systems in different layouts, and oversight reports lag by quarters.

What changes with Data Workers

Agents map every partner file, check completeness and keep program metrics current with lineage.

The workflow: Data Ingestion agent (get_connector_status) → Schema Evolution agent (generate_migration) → Quality Monitoring agent (run_quality_check) → Data Context & Catalog agent (generate_documentation).
Fig. 1:The workflow: Data Ingestion agent (get_connector_status) → Schema Evolution agent (generate_migration) → Quality Monitoring agent (run_quality_check) → Data Context & Catalog agent (generate_documentation).

The workflow, step by step

  1. 1.The Data Ingestion agent calls get_connector_status and lands partner files.
  2. 2.The Schema Evolution agent calls generate_migration and maps layouts.
  3. 3.The Quality Monitoring agent calls run_quality_check and checks completeness.
  4. 4.The Data Context & Catalog agent calls generate_documentation and documents lineage.

The impact metrics we move

  • •Partner file mapped: from about a week to ~1 h
  • •Oversight report: from about 3 months to 1 day
  • •Lineage question: from about 2 days to seconds
Time to complete, current practice (black) vs. with Data Workers (green). Illustrative.
Fig. 2:Time to complete, current practice (black) vs. with Data Workers (green). Illustrative.

What goes on autopilot

  • •Partner files map on arrival, so no quarter is lost.
  • •Lineage is generated, so oversight is defensible.

Where your people stay in charge

Published findings always go to a named approver, because they carry public trust. Everything starts at L1, observing only, and autonomy rises only on evidence.

The pilot

  • •Scope. One program's partner files.
  • •First week. Agents run at L1, observing only, and show the fixes they would have made, with receipts.
  • •By week two. The routine work above runs on its own; anything sensitive stays with a named approver.
  • •At day 30. We review the impact metrics against your baseline:
  • •Partner file mapped: from about a week to ~1 h
  • •Oversight report: from about 3 months to 1 day
  • •Lineage question: from about 2 days to seconds
  • •Cost. Start with a pilot ($7,500 one-time, credited in full against the first year). Scale is from $1,000 a month and Enterprise from $3,000 a month, billed annually, with unlimited seats, no usage meter and no markup on model spend. See pricing.

Related: The government hub · The full team playbook

Related Posts

Use case

Account intelligence data, run by agents

Account data is split across CRM, billing, product usage and enrichment vendors that identify accounts differently. Here is how Data Workers runs it instead.

Use case

Accruals and prepaids data, run by agents

Accrual schedules live in spreadsheets, and missed or stale accruals surface in review. Here is how Data Workers runs it instead.

Use case

Agent governance and audit, run by agents

AI agents act on data with no consistent approval, record or rollback. Here is how Data Workers runs it instead.

Use case

Agentic controllership, run by agents

Controllers spend the month chasing reconciliations, approvals and evidence across ERP, billing and spreadsheets. Here is how Data Workers runs it instead.