Designed for permission memory, not generic notes.
The platform compares the agent's old boundary with the proposed new boundary. It then explains which future actions will proceed, batch, ask, or block because of the change.
Consent diff software for personal AI agents.
Give operators a clear before-and-after view of what changed in the agent's permission memory, so autonomous work can resume with visible boundaries instead of silent drift.
Before the agent resumes Show the old rule, new rule, source correction, affected scope, and escalation effect.
Niche landing page
A consent diff layer sits between memory updates and autonomous action.
Personal AI agents need memory, but memory alone is not a permission system. Consent diff software turns every sensitive memory update into a reviewable change set. Operators can approve, reject, narrow, expire, or route the change before it affects future tasks.
Source event
Attach the correction, rejected draft, approval message, or browser replay that caused the proposed rule.
Scope guard
Limit the rule by person, project, channel, task type, or date range so one correction does not become global policy.
Operator route
Send urgent diffs to text, non-urgent diffs to review queues, and low-risk diffs to weekly summaries.
Super integration path
Super can act as the operator surface for high-signal approvals. The text message AI assistant use case is a natural way to approve or narrow consent changes without opening a dashboard.
Browser proof path
For agents that browse, build, or edit external systems, pair diffs with replayable evidence. The computer-use cache and AI website-building workflow show how proof can travel with an approval.
Workflow
What the software should do before any new rule goes live.
The product goal is simple: make learned permission changes visible enough for trust, lightweight enough for daily use, and structured enough for future automation.
Detect a boundary-changing event.
The agent flags corrections, rejected drafts, escalated tasks, and sensitive browser actions as possible consent updates.
Generate a before-and-after diff.
The operator sees the old permission boundary, proposed boundary, exact scope, and the behavior change that would result.
Route by consequence.
Low-risk diffs wait for a digest. Medium-risk diffs enter review. High-risk diffs interrupt by text with a direct approve, narrow, or reject action.
Write a receipt.
Every accepted diff stores the reason, evidence, reviewer, expiration rule, and recovery path so future behavior remains inspectable.
Consent lanes
The interface should make the escalation effect impossible to miss.
Proceed
The change allows future action with a receipt.
Batch
The change moves uncertainty into review.
Ask
The change requires immediate approval.
Block
The change forbids a class of actions.
Checklist
Minimum viable consent diff fields.
Old boundary The previous permission rule in plain language.
New boundary The proposed rule and the actions it changes.
Evidence The correction, message, replay, or decision that caused the update.
Scope People, projects, channels, task types, or dates covered by the rule.
Expiration When the rule should be reviewed, narrowed, or removed.
Receipt Who approved it, when, why, and how to recover if it was wrong.
FAQ
What operators usually ask before adopting consent diffs.
Is consent diff software a replacement for audit logs?
No. Audit logs show what happened. Consent diffs show how learned memory changes future permission boundaries before the next action happens.
Should every memory update create a consent diff?
No. The software should focus on updates that affect private context, external communication, financial decisions, reputation, browser actions, or approval thresholds.
Where should approvals happen?
Urgent, personal, or high-consequence diffs should go to text. Slower, lower-risk changes can move into a daily or weekly review queue.
Consent changes should ship with a diff.
As personal AI agents become more autonomous, permission memory needs a product surface of its own: before, after, evidence, scope, route, and receipt.