Combine AI Agents into a Content Workflow You Can Review

Reviewed 6 October 2026. Product statements are grounded in the linked documentation. Workflows and fictional examples are editorial guidance.

Original AI-generated concept illustration.

Connect roles around a reviewed result

A content workflow can use several AI tools without becoming a confusing collection of agents. The key is to define the work that passes between them. Research produces evidence, writing produces an explanation, code work prepares the site integration, and review checks the published result. Combining those roles can reduce repeated setup, but the workflow needs a clear owner and completion criteria. More connected tools do not automatically produce better content.

Hermes documentation describes persistent task coordination through its Kanban system. Claude and coding assistants can also contribute to drafting and implementation through their available interfaces. This article proposes a content-production arrangement that can be implemented with supported tools or manual handoffs. It does not describe a universal built-in connection among every product or promise that one command will automate an entire business. Verify each integration separately in the environment you use.

Documentation: Hermes Kanban collaboration documentation.

Start with an evidence brief

The first role collects current primary sources and identifies a reader question. Its output should include source URLs, relevant dates, supported facts, and unresolved claims. Avoid using a video's enthusiasm or a promotional summary as the sole factual basis. A useful brief might explain which feature changed, who can access it, and what practical task the reader can perform. Keep the source statements separate from suggested article angles.

Use a small structured record for each proposed story. Include topic, intended audience, source date, evidence status, and recommended next step. A story with an unverified release claim can remain a candidate rather than becoming a finished article. This saves the writer from building a long draft around an uncertain premise. The research role should also identify overlap with existing articles so the batch adds distinct value rather than repeating the same product overview.

Give the writer a bounded contract

The writing role receives the approved evidence brief and content requirements. Define minimum depth, intended tone, required sections, and the difference between confirmed facts and editorial examples. For a practical guide, require a workflow, troubleshooting, FAQs, and relevant internal links. Ask for original wording and a fictional worked example. Do not instruct the writer to reproduce a source transcript or retain its promotional sequence.

Keep the task's factual boundaries visible. If the brief does not confirm a price, the article should direct readers to the current pricing page rather than inventing a number. If a feature is only announced, distinguish that from general availability. Require the writer to list any new factual claims it introduces so the reviewer can check them. A detailed article can be useful without manufacturing certainty or pretending that an untested workflow is a measured success.

Create images with a distinct purpose

An article hero image should communicate the topic and fit the site's visual style. Write an image brief after the article's angle is clear. A plugin-workspace article might use a modular desktop illustration; a memory article might use organized notebooks and connected knowledge objects. Avoid presenting generated concept art as a screenshot of the actual product. Keep the image descriptive and original, with no unnecessary names, endorsements, or promotional elements.

Save the image alongside the article's assets and give it meaningful alternative text. Check that it remains readable at the card size and article size used by the blog. A complicated scene can lose its subject when reduced. Confirm that the image path matches the actual file and that the site can serve the format. Image generation is only complete when the asset is available to the article and visually suitable for its intended placement.

Let the coding role preserve the site contract

The implementation role should use the existing article schema and route pattern. Provide a current example rather than assuming every blog stores content the same way. Define which fields are required: title, slug, HTML content, excerpt, metadata, category, featured image, and reading time where applicable. Import new records additively. Do not replace a site's whole content inventory with a smaller batch merely because the new batch file has a familiar name.

Internal links must point to valid existing or new articles. The table of contents must point to headings present in the rendered content. Apply the intended blue link styling within the article template or content boundary. Check whether the site's renderer modifies inline styles or relative paths. A correct JSON record can still display incorrectly after import, so inspect an actual page when the target environment is accessible. Keep integration claims limited to what was verified.

Define a reviewer who can reject the result

The review role needs the source brief, draft, assets, and acceptance checklist. Its job is to identify concrete defects, not simply praise the output. Check unsupported claims, duplicated sections, incorrect routes, missing anchors, and image mismatches. For a word requirement, count the readable article body rather than raw markup. Confirm that FAQs answer useful questions instead of repeating generic reassurance. The reviewer should be able to return a specific repair request to the responsible role.

Separate content review from deployment review. An article can pass factual and editorial checks while still having a broken image path. A deployment can work technically while the article remains inaccurate. Record both outcomes. If the target blog is unavailable, deliver a validated import package and state that installation remains pending. Do not describe a prepared file as already live. Clear status protects the team's understanding of what work has actually been completed.

Preserve state across handoffs

Use a task board or a shared project record to track candidate, drafting, review, and accepted states. Each handoff should identify the latest file and the next action. Avoid sending only a conversation link when the next role needs a concrete artifact. If several workers operate at once, give them separate outputs and consolidate after review. Shared editing of the same content file can create avoidable conflicts and make the accepted version unclear.

Record decisions that affect future work: route conventions, accepted image style, required source checks, and category mappings. Keep those records small and dated. When a rule changes, identify the authoritative replacement instead of allowing old instructions to circulate in several copies. A reliable workflow survives interruptions because its state is visible in files and tasks, not only in the active agent's context. This also makes recovery easier when a tool fails.

Measure the production process honestly

Track reviewed articles completed, defects found, repair effort, and time waiting for dependencies. Raw generated word count is not a strong measure of editorial productivity. A batch of long but repetitive articles may create more cleanup than value. Compare the accepted outputs with your previous process and identify the real bottleneck. It may be source verification or final editing rather than drafting speed.

Use those findings to adjust roles. If the writer repeatedly lacks evidence, improve the research brief. If imports fail, strengthen the schema example and validation. If the reviewer is overloaded, reduce active work instead of adding more generators. A connected workflow should make the next repair obvious. The strongest arrangement is the one that produces original, supported, well-integrated content at a pace the team can review and maintain.

Run one story through the full cycle

Choose a noncritical topic and complete the process from candidate to accepted article. Include one source uncertainty, one revision, and one technical check. Confirm that every role receives the information it needs. Save the final article, image, and review record together. This pilot will reveal more than a diagram of an ideal automated pipeline, because it exposes the actual handoff and integration conditions in your environment.

Expand only after the pilot works. Add another story or tool when it has a defined purpose and a measurable benefit. Preserve manual handoffs where integrations are unavailable rather than inventing connections. The workflow can still be useful without being fully automatic. Its value comes from a clear path between evidence, original explanation, suitable assets, and a reviewed page that the reader can actually use.

Frequently asked questions

Resources and related articles

• Hermes Kanban collaboration documentation

Continue with Hermes Kanban Workflows: Move Agent Tasks from Ideas to Review, Hermes and Obsidian: Create Maintainable Agent Memory, or Gemini for Project Managers: Create Reviewable Plans.