Automation QA Sprint · For agencies

Test the client-facing workflow before your client does.

Built a Make, n8n, Zapier, Clay, or AI-agent workflow for a client? Put one scoped flow through a human check before handoff. See what gets tested, what evidence comes back, and what stays uncertain.

Starting offer
Automation QA Sprint · $199 listed payout
Best fit
One client-facing workflow, tested in a safe environment before delivery
Timing
Agreed per task before work starts; no guaranteed turnaround

Scope card

One bounded flow, explicit expectations, a human run-through, and a report your team can act on.

You provide

  • A description of one workflow and where its client-facing output lands.
  • Test or sandbox access, or recorded runs with enough detail to inspect; agree on access before starting.
  • Expected behavior and 5–10 realistic test cases, or we draft those cases with you before testing.

The human check

  • Run agreed realistic cases and edge cases against the test setup.
  • Compare routing, notifications, and output fields with your expectations.
  • Mark what passed, failed, or could not be confirmed rather than guessing.

What you receive

  • A case-by-case pass / fail / uncertain table.
  • Screenshots or recorded evidence references and reproducible steps for issues.
  • Top risks, limitations, and a retest recommendation.

Boundaries

  • No production credentials, passwords, or sensitive client data in public task text. Arrange only minimum necessary access through an appropriate private channel after scope review.
  • No regulated or legal assurance, security certification, or guarantee that the workflow is bug-free.
  • Timing is agreed per task; staffing and access are confirmed before work begins.

Price: $199 fixed listed starter offer. Workers receive the listed payout. Employers pay Stripe processing plus a 1% GoHireHumans fee where checkout is configured. You review the draft before publishing or paying.

Sample — illustrative, not a real client

A handoff report you can actually use

Fictional example: a lead-intake form creates a CRM contact, assigns a queue by region, and sends a confirmation email. The test environment uses invented records; the case IDs and evidence references below show a possible report format, not work completed for a customer.

Illustrative lead-intake automation: expected behavior, observed result, and status
CaseStatusExpectedIllustrative observation / evidence
01 · Standard North leadPassContact created, North queue, one emailCRM record L-01 and confirmation preview match the input.
02 · Standard South leadPassContact created, South queue, one emailCRM record L-02 shows South owner; one queued email.
03 · Missing emailPassForm rejects input; no CRM recordRequired-field message displayed; no record in test CRM search.
04 · Same email, second submitFailExisting contact updated, no duplicateTwo records L-04a/L-04b appear for the same address. See repro A.
05 · Unsupported regionFailRoute to manual-review queueContact created without an owner; no review queue entry. See repro B.
06 · Accented namePassName retained in CRM and email“José” displays correctly in record L-06 and mail preview.
07 · CRM timeoutUncertainRetry or alert; avoid silent lossRecorded run ends at timeout; retry and alert logs were not provided.
08 · Rapid repeat submitUncertainOne contact and one confirmationOne contact visible; email provider delivery log unavailable.

Reproduction notes

  1. A · Duplicate contact: In the sandbox, submit a North lead with test.one@example.invalid, then submit again with the same address and a changed company. Search the test CRM by email: L-04a and L-04b appear. Capture the two record IDs and the two run IDs.
  2. B · Unrouted region: Submit a lead with region “West” (not in the routing map). Open the created contact and manual-review queue: owner is blank and the queue has no item. Capture the run trace and contact record.

Top three handoff risks

  1. Duplicate submissions can split a client's lead history across contacts.
  2. Unsupported regions can silently strand leads without an owner.
  3. Timeout recovery and email delivery cannot be signed off without retry/alert and provider logs.

Limits of this sample: All records and observations are fictional. The review covers only these eight sandbox cases. It does not prove production deliverability, all region mappings, load behavior, or every integration failure mode. Fix failed cases and supply missing logs, then retest before handoff.

Bring one flow to review.

Draft the Automation QA Sprint with your expected behavior and safe test setup. This is an early, founder-managed offer: first tasks stay small and evidence-backed, with founder review where feasible. If we cannot responsibly staff your task, we will decline it before starting. No testers or turnaround are promised in advance.

Want the general format instead? See proof packs or compare starter offers.