HR Mission Control · Private prototype

Testing AI-assisted compliance review.

I built a private tool that checks a defined set of public sources and prepares a brief for someone to review. It keeps the sources, decision, and follow-up in one case. The person still makes the call.

Explore the interactive HRMC model →

Status: Working prototype
Built by: Mike Winkler
Environment: OpenClaw
Test data: Public and made-up
Decision authority: Qualified person

What is HR Mission Control?

HR Mission Control is my private test system for reviewing compliance updates. Its job is narrow: notice a possible update, prepare the evidence for review, route the work to a named person, and keep the approved action from disappearing after the first meeting.

The problem

Finding the update was not the whole job.

A compliance update can land in an inbox and still go nowhere. Someone has to check the source, work out which facts are missing, decide who should review it, assign the next step, and confirm the change was actually made.

I built HR Mission Control to test whether an agent could carry that administrative follow-up while a person handled the HR or legal judgment. I wanted the source, review, and action to stay in the same case until the work was finished.

HR Mission ControlExample review path

01 · Input
Approved source
A policy or compliance update
02 · Agent work
Review packet
Source, summary, missing facts, suggested owner
03 · Human gate
HR reviews
Interpret, question, change, approve, or stop
Agent stops here
04 · Follow-through
Named owner
Action, due date, status, and proof it was finished

64/64: repeatable checks passed
10/10: known items found in a small source test
240: local requests in five minutes without a failure

A simplified workflow Mike Winkler uses to test agentic AI in HR. The system prepares and routes the work; a qualified person owns the decision. The dated local results are not a claim of production readiness or complete legal coverage.

The artifact

What the reviewer can inspect

A polished summary is easy to over-trust. The review packet separates what the source says from what still needs interpretation, then makes the handoff visible.

Example review packetHuman review required

Source: URL, publisher, retrieved date, and the version checked
What changed: A short factual summary tied back to the source
Still missing: Jurisdiction, workforce impact, conflicting guidance, or another open fact
Reviewer: HR, Legal, Security, Privacy, or another named owner can change, reject, or stop it
Approved next step: Named owner, due date, and only the action the reviewer approved
Closeout: Status, evidence, final decision, and the person who made it

HR Mission Control prototype showing public compliance items beside a decision packet with source provenance, two highlighted information gaps, and a separate Human decision step — Private HRMC prototype · Public-source test material · August 2026A reviewer can see where the information came from, whether it can be used, and what is still missing.The visible gaps still need review; this capture does not validate the source or its interpretation.Open screenshot at full size

The failure that changed the build

A page title changed. HRMC opened a duplicate case.

One test page got a new title. HRMC opened a second case and left the earlier review, owner, and notes on the first one. The screen still looked orderly. The work was now split in two.

I changed how HRMC identifies the underlying issue, so a new page title no longer creates a new case. Comparing titles was the wrong way to remember work a person had already reviewed.

Dated local checks

What the local tests checked

These July 2026 checks used public or made-up data in a limited local test.

July 15, 2026

64/64

Repeatable checks passed

The same expected behaviors held across the local test suite.

July 13, 2026

10/10

Known items found

The workflow found every item in a small source set I had already checked by hand.

July 10, 2026

240

Local requests completed

The prototype completed 240 requests without a failure during a five-minute test.

HR Mission Control prototype showing a public Connecticut compliance item with What Changed, Why It Matters, and the eight-stage decision packet sequence — Private HRMC prototype · Public-source test material · August 4, 2026The selected packet keeps “what changed,” “why it matters,” and the eight-stage path in the same view.This is a prototype capture, not client evidence. The screen does not show whether the follow-up was completed.Open screenshot at full size

The public trail

Public notes and a community mention

The public workflow library documents the design and its limits. AI for HR Community also described the OpenClaw work in a session announcement.

Public build notesOpenClaw HR workflow libraryWorkflow patterns, boundaries, and source notes ↗Independent mentionAI for HR Community sessionExternal description of Mike Winkler’s OpenClaw work ↗

The boundary

Scope and limits

HRMC prepares and routes work for a qualified person. It does not provide legal advice or interpret company policy. These local tests do not establish complete source coverage, legal correctness, security, production readiness, or client outcomes.

No employee discipline, termination, pay, promotion, leave, or accommodation decisions
No production access to company or employee data in this build
No action past the review gate without explicit approval

What I bring to client work

How this informs an advisory engagement

The duplicate-case bug gave me a specific question to ask in a workflow review: when a source changes, does the earlier human review stay attached? I would want that tested before a team relied on the record.

In an HR process review, I map those dependencies in your process. In an AI pilot review, I examine what happened when the source, reviewer, or next action changed.

Inspect the public workflow notes How I build agentic AI workflows for HR

Finding the update was not the whole job.

Approved source

Review packet

HR reviews

Named owner