Decision Made → Gather Inputs → Standardise Notes → Build Packet → File Audit Trail
Screening Compliance Co-Pilot
Standardises screening notes, decision packets, and audit trails for review, so screening documentation is consistent and defensible instead of varying by who handled it.
The Problem
Screening notes are inconsistent, so the audit trail is thin.
Screening notes and decision packets vary by person. Audit trails are incomplete.
What Changes
Standard decision packets with a clean audit trail.
Standardises screening documentation so every application gets the same format, the same criteria checklist, and a clear decision trail. Your team still makes the decision - the agent ensures it's documented consistently.
Humans stay in control: Your team makes the screening decision. The agent documents it consistently. It removes the thin paper trail, not the decision.
HOW THE AGENT WORKS
TRIGGERLLMAPIDECISIONACTIONWAIT
TRIGGERScreening DoneA screening decision is recorded
APIGather InputsPull the criteria, results, and decision
LLMStandardise NotesWrite consistent decision rationale
LLMBuild PacketAssemble the decision packet
DECISIONComplete?
ACTIONFile Audit TrailStore the reviewable record
The agent doesn't approve or deny applicants. It standardises the documentation. Your team makes every screening decision.
HOW TO BUILD IT
Three levels of depth. Pick the one that matches where you are.
For the ops person who needs to understand what's involved and brief their team.
Your ScreeningsDecisions + inputs
The AgentWorkflow engine + LLM
Your RecordsStandard packets
WHAT YOUR TEAM PROVIDES ONCE
- Screening criteria - the standards applied
- Packet format - what a decision record must contain
- Inputs access - application, results, decision
- Consistency rules - how rationale should read
- Storage - where audit trails are kept
What happens day-to-day: A screening decision gets made. The agent assembles the inputs, writes a consistent rationale against your criteria, and files a complete decision packet, so every screening has the same defensible documentation regardless of who handled it.
For the IT person or technical lead who needs to scope the integration.
INQUIRY SOURCES
Screening tool
Application data
Decision record
WORKFLOW ENGINE (N8N)
Trigger
API - Gather inputs
LLM - Standardise notes
LLM - Build packet
Branch - complete?
File audit trail
Flag gaps
CONNECTS TO
Screening providerRead: criteria, results
PMS / applicationRead: applicant + decision
Document storeWrite: decision packet
Notifications (email / Slack)Flag incomplete records
WITHOUT PMS API
Agent works from provided inputs and assembles the packet for manual filing.
WITH PMS API
Agent pulls screening inputs live and files a complete packet per decision. Best experience.
For the person who wants to build this agent step by step. Each node below maps to an n8n workflow node.
TRIGGERNode 1
Trigger - Screening Done
Fires when a screening decision is recorded.
Output: { applicant_id, decision, screening_id }
APINode 2
HTTP Request - Gather Inputs
Pull criteria, screening results, and the recorded decision.
Output: { criteria, results, decision }
LLMNode 3
LLM - Standardise Notes
Write a consistent rationale tying the decision to the criteria and results.
Output: { rationale, criteria_cited[] }
You standardise screening decision notes.
Given the criteria, results, and decision, write a consistent rationale that ties the decision to the criteria. State facts only; do not introduce new judgments.
Return rationale and criteria_cited. Respond ONLY with valid JSON.
CRITERIA: {criteria}
RESULTS: {results}
DECISION: {decision}OUTPUT
{
"rationale": "Application approved. Income 3.2x rent (criterion: 3x min), no disqualifying records, references verified.",
"criteria_cited": ["income_ratio", "criminal_screen", "references"]
}LLMNode 4
LLM - Build Packet
Assemble the decision packet in the required format.
Output: { packet_sections{}, attachments[] }
You assemble a screening decision packet.
Fill the PACKET FORMAT sections from the inputs and rationale. List attachments. Respond ONLY with valid JSON.
PACKET FORMAT: {packet_format}
INPUTS: {inputs}
RATIONALE: {rationale}OUTPUT
{
"packet_sections": { "summary": "Approved per criteria", "criteria_applied": "income, criminal, references", "decision": "approve" },
"attachments": ["application", "screening report", "reference checks"]
}DECISIONNode 5
Condition - Complete?
IF all required sections and attachments present → file. ELSE → flag the gaps.
Output: Branch: COMPLETE (file) or GAPS (flag)
ACTIONNode 6
File Audit Trail
Store the complete packet in the audit record for the applicant.
Output: Consistent, reviewable decision record filed.
MVP vs Advanced — Where To Start
MVP — START HERE
- Manual trigger
- Provided inputs
- Manual rationale
- Template packet
- Manual filing
- Email gaps
ADVANCED — ADD LATER
Full Video Walkthrough Coming Soon
From a screening decision to a documented packet - step by step.
Register to be notifiedEverything on this page is free to learn.
When you're ready to build — do it yourself or bring us in.
OTHER AGENTS IN LEASING & MARKETING
Fraud and Anomaly Monitor
Flags suspicious payment and identity patterns early
Incident Documentation Agent
Guides structured incident capture, produces consistent reports
Compliance Evidence Pack Agent
Assembles audit-ready or claim-ready documentation packets
Screening and Fair Housing Audit Agent
Flags inconsistent screening criteria and risky policy language
Frequently asked questions
Screening Compliance Co-Pilot is an AI agent that standardises screening documentation and audit trails.
Screening notes are inconsistent, so the audit trail is thin. The Screening Compliance Co-Pilot addresses this — it standardises screening documentation and audit trails.
No — your team stays in control. Your team makes the screening decision. The agent documents it consistently. It removes the thin paper trail, not the decision.
This is 8 of 8 agents in Compliance, Risk & Legal. → · Explore all 10 departments →