Media AI agent · Development
Script-Coverage & Development AI Agent
Read submitted material and return the working documents a development executive reads from — synopsis, beat breakdown, character and location counts, comps and a consistency pass — the judgement stays with the executive.
- Typical delivery
- 4–6 weeks
- Deployment
- Your stack
- Recommendation
- The executive's
- After launch
- Agent Care
What this agent does
Prepares the reading, not the verdict
In
- 01
Take the submission as filed — the draft, its date, who sent it, and the permission under which it may be read.
- 02
Read that draft and any treatment, pitch document or underlying work filed with it, keeping version and page numbering.
Reason
- 03
Draft a synopsis and a beat and structure breakdown, with the page each beat was read off recorded against it.
- 04
Count speaking parts, scenes, locations, night exteriors, stunts, minors and animals as the pages state them.
- 05
Line up comparable titles by form, genre and production scale, and say what each comparison was drawn from.
Decide
- 06
Mark continuity breaks, dropped threads, unnumbered revisions and what the draft contradicts about itself.
- 07
Send anything about merit, market or the writer to a named development executive rather than answering it.
Out
- 08
Return the reading documents with no recommendation, no score and no rank against any other submission.
- 09
Retain the submission's permission record, the documents produced, the executive's notes and who read what.
Product statement
The agent prepares what a reading is done from. It does not assess the script, rank a writer, or write or rewrite a line of it.
Example workflow
One submission, end to end
- 1Submission receivedA spec, a treatment, a pitch document or underlying material, with whatever it arrived under
- 2Permission checkedWhose material it is, the release or agreement that permits the read, what may be retained, what may be shared, and what may never be used for training
- 3Reading documents draftedSynopsis, beat and structure breakdown, character and location counts and production-scale notes, each carrying the page it was read off
- 4Consistency passContinuity breaks, dropped threads, name and timeline contradictions, and revision marks the draft does not carry
No human action required
Stages 1 to 4 run without a person in the loop — the permission check, the reading documents and the consistency pass finish before a development executive opens anything.
Reaches the development executive ready to read.
Goes back marked incomplete, not summarised over.
Development executive
The executive judges the draft. The pack is what that reading is done from — it is not literary material, and it carries no recommendation, score or rank.
Accept · Correct · Assign a reader
Accepted — handed back
- 6Pack handed overAttached to the submission record for the executive who will read it, carrying no recommendation and marked as machine-produced wherever it travels
- 7Outcome reviewedWhat the executive corrected, which beats had no page behind them, and where a count did not survive a second reading
Corrections
Every beat or count an executive re-reads is counted.
What should not run autonomously
Human approval stays in control
Outside the boundary — human approval required
8 items
- Recommending, passing on or ranking a submission.
- Scoring a script or a writer.
- Predicting audience, box office or performance.
- Writing or rewriting any part of the script.
Automation boundary
Agent acts unaided
- ✓Draft the synopsis and the beat and structure breakdown.
- ✓Count characters, scenes, locations and production-scale items.
- ✓Line up comparable titles and say what each was drawn from.
- ✓Mark continuity breaks and what the draft contradicts.
Write actions run only inside the approval boundaries agreed during implementation. The assessment is not one of them.
- Reading material submitted without a release.
- Sharing a submission beyond the agreed reading.
- Retaining or training on a writer's draft.
- Deciding what a development slate acquires.
Example output
One submission, annotated
Each document in the pack cites the page in the draft it came from.
Coverage output · single submission
Illustrative example- Submission
- Spec feature, first draft
- Permission
- Signed release on file
- Pages read
- 112 of 112
- Documents
- Synopsis, beats, counts
- Confidence
- 88%
- Recommendation
- Left to the executive
As received
The draft as it was filed, the permission it arrived under, and how much of it the agent actually read.
Evidence used
- Pages 14–17, three beats
- Scene headings, 41
- Cast list, 9 speaking
Why there is no verdict
Merit is an opinion a person holds. The agent assembles what it is formed on.
What the score decides
It decides how closely the citations are re-checked, not whether the script is any good.
Action
AcceptCorrectAssign a readerValue
Where AI adds value
The same four claims, placed at the point in the workflow where each one applies.
Where the value lands
Value 01 – 04
Every submission
From agents, managers, festivals and open windows
Tie each beat to a page
Beats, counts and contradictions arrive with the page they were read off, so an executive can check the pack against the draft.
Put the hour back into the script
Synopsis, beats and counts are drafted before the meeting, so a development executive spends the time on the draft rather than on summarising it.
Raise the missing paperwork early
A submission with no release, an unnumbered revision or an underlying work nobody has licensed is named before anyone reads further.
Build an evidence trail
Retain the submission and its permission, the documents produced, the pages behind them, the executive's corrections and who read what — on both paths.
Integrations
Typical integrations
Five system groups connect to the same agent. Which of them are in scope is decided in discovery.
Submission & tracking
- Rival
- Coverfly
- Slated
- Submission logs
- release records
Script & document stores
- Final Draft
- WriterDuet
- PDF drafts
- SharePoint
- Box
- Google Drive
Legal & business affairs
- Submission releases
- NDAs
- Option agreements
- chain-of-title files
Agent
Script coverage & development
- Reads the submission
- Drafts the documents
- Routes to development
Development workflow
- Slack
- Coverage templates
- reader assignments
Observability & evaluation
- OpenTelemetry
- Langfuse
- Supported monitoring/evaluation sources
Integration availability depends on the client's existing systems and API access.
Agent controls
Six layers between the model and the reading
Each control wraps the one inside it. A pack clears every layer before a development executive opens it, and the assessment itself sits outside all six.
L6 · Outermost — last line of defence
Inward → L1 · closest to the model
- L1 – L2
- Tie the read to a permission and a page
- L3
- Decides who forms the assessment
- L4 – L5
- Keep the material and the trail in bounds
- L6
- Pulls automation back when signals degrade
How Nestack evaluates it
Evaluate what was read, what was cited and what was left to a person.
Coverage runs the whole depth of the workflow, and every layer is cut by slice.
Surface — the pack a development executive opens
- E1Final-output evaluationDoes the synopsis match what the draft actually contains?
- E2Step-level evaluationWere beats, counts and contradictions read off the right pages?
- E3Tool evaluationDid it open the right draft, revision and submission record?
- E4Permission adherenceWas material read, retained and shared only as its release allows?
- E5Slice evaluationHow does the reading change across forms, genres and origins?
- E6Business outcomeHow much of the pack did an executive have to correct?
Floor — the corrections that pack needed before the meeting
Failure modes
Where each failure originates in the agent
Seven failure modes plotted against the five stages of the agent lifecycle. A pack already circulated is corrected and re-issued to everyone sent the first one, with what changed named.
Agent lifecycle
Direction of processing →
01 · Intake
1 mode
- SR-01
Read without a release on file
A submission is covered before anyone checks it may be read.
Stage admits
The draft, its revision and the permission to read it
02 · Reading
2 modes
- SR-02
Action given to the wrong character
A beat is credited to someone not in the scene.
- SR-03
Beat with no page behind it
A plot point reaches the synopsis that the draft never contained.
Stage drafts
Synopsis, beats, counts and comparable titles
03 · Consistency
1 mode
- SR-04
Unfamiliar structure marked as a fault
A non-linear or ensemble draft is read as broken continuity.
Stage marks
Contradictions, dropped threads and revision gaps
04 · Handover
2 modes
- SR-05
Summary drifts into a verdict
Wording in the pack reads as a recommendation to pass or pursue.
- SR-06
Comps drawn from what got made
Comparable titles narrow to films the model has seen succeed.
Stage returns
The pack a development executive reads from
05 · Change / Version
1 mode
- SR-07
Silent citation regression
A template change drops the page behind each beat unnoticed.
Stage tracks
Model, prompt, template and retention-rule changes
- Sev-1 · material or judgement leaves the boundary
- Sev-2 · a wrong reading reaches the desk
- Sev-3 · the reading narrows and is re-read
Affected slices
The drafts least like what already got made
Drafts that do not sit in a familiar three-act shape, work translated into English and writers with nothing produced behind them carry most of what an executive rewrites. Nestack reports performance by slice, not only in total.
Slice performance — reported separately, not only in aggregate
Illustrative example| Slice | Failure rate | Lift | Lift vs. threshold | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Non-linear and ensemble structures | 4.7% | 2.6× | Review | |
| First-time and unrepresented writers | 3.9% | 2.2× | Review | |
| Translated and non-English drafts | 3.4% | 1.9× | Watch | |
| Standard three-act features | 1.3% | 0.7× | Normal |
Bar: executive-correction rate lift vs. standard three-act features · scale 0–4.0× · tick marks the 2.0× threshold
2 of 4 slices over threshold
Evidence-linked improvement
Coverage outlives the meeting it was written for
A pack written for one reading is opened months later by someone who never saw the draft. A beat that was wrong then is still wrong.
Improvement cycle · five stages
Switchback — the path turns at Improve and returns at Learn
- 01
Detect
Executive corrections, uncited beats or a re-read cluster in one kind of draft.
- 02
Diagnose
Traced to the intake, the pages read, a beat citation, the comps rule or the template.
- 03
Improve
The template, comps rule or citation requirement is changed with your development lead, and version-linked.
- 04
Verify
Re-run against held-out submissions, including the packs an executive rewrote.
- 05
Learn
The rewritten pack is kept beside the draft it misread, and the page rule enters the coverage template.
Learn → Detect
The return edge. Every cycle re-reads drafts of the kind the last one got wrong, against the template as it now stands.
Typical build scope
Twelve workstreams across six weeks
The build scope read against the delivery timeline. Week structure follows the six-week plan — discovery, submission intake and permissions, reading templates, evaluation, development review, then production validation and handover.
Workstream
Week 1Week 2Week 3Week 4Week 5Week 6
- 01Workflow discovery and automation-boundary definition.Week 1
- 02Submission intake and permission-record mapping.Week 1, Week 2
- 03Retention, sharing and training controls.Week 1, Week 2
- 04Draft, revision and version handling.Week 2
- 05Synopsis and beat-breakdown templates.Week 2, Week 3
- 06Character, scene and location counting.Week 3
- 07Production-scale and comparable-title rules.Week 3, Week 4
- 08Consistency and contradiction checks.Week 4
- 09Verdict, ranking and rewrite refusals.Week 4, Week 5
- 10Development review and sign-off record.Week 4, Week 5
- 11Evaluation suite, slices and regression drafts.Week 5, Week 6
- 12Observability, deployment and Agent Care handover.Week 6
12 workstreams · 6 weeks · bar shows the weeks a workstream is active — several run in parallel
Final scope and sequence confirmed in discovery
Engagement tiers
What each tier includes
Rows are the capabilities named in each tier's scope. Higher tiers include everything below them.
| Capability✓ in scope · — not at this tier | PilotOne submission type, one team | ProductionProduction submission-system integration | AdvancedMultiple slates and territories |
|---|---|---|---|
| Introduced at Pilot | |||
| Synopsis, beat and structure breakdown | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Character, scene and location counts | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Beat-level page citations | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Consistency and contradiction pass | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Permission and confidentiality controls | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Development-executive sign-off | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Comparable titles and production-scale notes | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Introduced at Production | |||
| Submission-system and script-store integration | — | ✓ | ✓ |
| Observability and slice evaluation | — | ✓ | ✓ |
| Non-English drafts and multi-slate volume | — | ✓ | ✓ |
| Introduced at Advanced | |||
| Underlying works and enterprise controls | — | — | ✓ |
| Build price | From $5,000 | From $8,000 | Custom quote |
- Final build price
- Confirmed after discovery based on submission volume and formats, the document set behind each submission, permission and retention requirements, development-system integrations, approval controls and deployment requirements.
- Separate from build
- Build pricing is separate from recurring Agent Care, which covers managed monitoring, evaluations, incidents and verified improvements after launch.
What we need from you
What you bring, and what we build with it
Each input maps to a piece of build scope and a week in the delivery timeline.
You bring
We build with it
01Your submission log and the releases behind it
→Submission intake and permission-record mapping
Week 102The retention and sharing rules business affairs set
→Retention, sharing and training controls
Week 203Sample drafts, revisions and the coverage you write today
→Draft handling and synopsis and beat-breakdown templates
Week 204What your counts and production-scale notes must contain
→Character, scene and location counting
Week 305The comparable titles your team actually reaches for
→Production-scale and comparable-title rules
Week 306Packs that went wrong, and the drafts they misread
→Evaluation suite, slices and regression drafts
Week 507Named development executives and your assigned readers
→Development review workflow, then packs under sign-off
Weeks 5–6
Nothing else is required
Deployment, documentation and Agent Care handover are ours.
Delivery timeline
Four phases across six weeks
Phases are drawn over the weeks they actually occupy. Week 5 carries the first packs a development executive works from.
Phase
W1
W2
W3
W4
W5
W6
- DiscoveryW1
- BuildW2 – W3
- EvaluateW4 – W5
- Pilot & LaunchW5 – W6
Week focus
W1Submission types, permissions and who forms the assessment
W2Intake, retention rules and draft and revision handling
W3Synopsis, beat breakdown, counts and comparable-title rules
W4Consistency checks, refusals, evaluation suite and slices
W5Submission-system wiring, then packs an executive reads
W6Live submissions under development review, then Agent Care
- Reading the band
- Draft and revision handling lands in week 2, before any beat is cited in week 3. The bars show that dependency, not a smooth ramp.
- At the end of W6
- Named development executives have worked from live packs, with the page each beat was read off recorded against it and the verdict left where it belongs, then Agent Care takes over monitoring.
- Duration
- Six-week plan shown · typical delivery 4–6 weeks depending on scope confirmed in discovery.
Next step · Media AI agent
Build a coverage agent around your submissions and the executives who read them.
Show us how submissions reach you, the releases and retention rules behind them, and the coverage your team writes today. We'll read a draft you have already covered and show you what it cited to a page, what it got wrong, and everything it refused to say about the writer.
- Typical delivery
- 4–6 weeks
- Deployment
- Your development stack
- Recommendation
- The development executive's
- After launch
- Agent Care available
Nestack Agents · Script coverage & development
AGT-ME-12 · Agent Care available after launch