All right. Um, everybody can see. Hey everybody. Um, thank you for being here. I'm going to talk about um the fact that if you go ahead and build a company brain, it will um likely leak company secrets. um which is kind of the big fear that we have about building a company brain anyway, right? Which is this case of like intern joins the company and then suddenly gets like comp details and everybody kind of situation, right? You want to you want to guard against that. Um this has kind of been I guess pretty much the biggest thing that's been holding us back from just deploying openclaw and Hermes all over the place, right? It's also kind of the reason it's like this big opportunity that Claude Tag had with it recent launch a few days ago where like it was going to be the company brain but then everybody's like well it's not um it doesn't look like it's going to be the company brain right so I'm going to talk about kind of what makes it challenging so before we get into that let's let's kind of understand and dissect this company brain business a little bit right um I'm Tan I'm the co founderql um you can check promqql out um later but uh the our background as a team building This is we come from um the hustra graph we're creators of the hassur graphql engine which is very popular open source project in the graphql space uh where we solved a lot of data access problems um we deployed everywhere from like apple to meta to JP Morgan etc. uh and um and that kind of gave us a lot of these this grounding uh for uh and and you know kind of like a lovehate relationship with uh data and data security. Um, all right. So, I'm going to show you stuff that we've been working on over the last year and kind of what we've learned from that so that you can kind of take that and exercise that and try it out for yourself. Um, and of course, at the end of the talk, happy to kind of exchange notes and see what works or what might what might not work for you. Um, over the last year, we've only partnered with a small set of people who've exhibited some kind of spike on scale. M so about 15 to 20 folks so far and now we're just starting to open it up to other people but over that course of time we've kind of looked at three different types of set of people with very different needs right you have AI native companies that are willing to just do whatever as long as it works you have kind of tech forward companies right folks like Instacart who um like best of breed technology right um so they'll move fast they'll be tolerable to breaking things but it just needs to be really really good right and then you have fortune banks uh who have like a me level security. Uh, thank God that they do because they're my bank. I definitely don't want vibecoded AI agents running inside a bank because that's where my money is. Um, so they have a lot of security rules. Uh, thank you so much. Uh, but we're deployed in places like those as well. Um, with kind of the beginnings or like the frontal lobe of a company brain, right? So, we'll kind of talk about those kind of learnings.

Our own personal usage of kind of building out our company brain. Um it kind of is about 5,000 pages. So we model it as a wiki. Uh you can model it however you want. You can model it as a set of markdown files on GitHub. You can put it into a remember graph frag. Uh you can model it in a you can model it in knowledge in knowledge graphs. You can do whatever you want. Um so you can you can place it wherever you want. But like it's about 5,000 interconnected pages for us. Question for you folks. So suppose you had a company brain that was working. It was working well. It was all set up right. um there would be a kind of daily number of updates that would happen to this com to this company brain, right? Because it was learning stuff from everybody in the company, right? From finance to HR to um your engineers to everybody. So if you were to plot the daily number of updates happening to the company brain, what would it sort of look like? Would it sort of look like a roughly downward trend? Like all of these are like random graphs, but would you would it sort of like start and then go down? Would it kind of be steady going up and down as updates spike or would it kind of steadily increase upwards? Um so kind of think about like what would the commit history to your shared skills repo look like, right? How many updates are happening to a healthy company brain, right? Um every single day, what does that trend look like? Um anybody for option A? Anybody thinks it's option A? Okay, cool. Uh, option B. Okay. Option C. Ah, that's nice. Um, and and and so that's so when I kind of plotted our thing, right, to see what a healthy company brain looks like. Um, if you look at number one, it's basically saying we had a lot of enthusiasm. We built the company brain on day one, day two. somebody we gave somebody the task and said build all the shared skills repo scrape all the slack scrape all the emails build it and we'll all use it and then nobody cares right or you have a system which is autolearning maybe you have a Hermes that's deployed internally something like that where it's kind of steadily adding more and more comments so it kind of goes up and down depending on who has enthusiasm right um and then when I plotted our history over just the last uh two months and this is a little bit outdated now this is what we got and I was kind of shocked I was like, why is it continuously increasing? Like it's a gentle curve, right? But why is it gently just going up? Why is the number of updates per day increasing? And that was fascinating for me to see because what I realized was that if you have a system that starts to work, what happens is people start to teach it a lot more. It's like saying if I taught you the skill for quering data then tomorrow I'm going to teach you the skill for interpreting that data and then day after tomorrow I'm going to teach you the skill of how to take an action based on that and then after that I'm going to figure out how to do AB testing based on so people like you continuously add more but because everything is an agent where no amount of learning is perfect everything has its own kind of steady rate as well right so the rates kind of even your steady rates kind of keep adding up and that's what I started to notice in our thing as well this is early. So, who knows if it'll kind of peter out eventually. Maybe it'll start to look more like option B. But a healthy brain, of course, the overall size keeps increasing, but even your daily updates per day kind of keep increasing as well. So, that's a sign of a good brain that you built, right? A healthy brain that you built for your company.

Awesome. The use cases for company brains, how we start to analyze how we build a system that won't leak secrets, right? So, two use cases. The first use case is there is a company brain. I want to use it in my AI agent whatever to get work done, right? Um I'll show you an example of that, right? It's like I got an email with a security questionnaire I need to answer from a customer and I talk to my AI and I'm like look up the company brain and help me answer this security questionnaire. Right? That's a totally valid use case of a company brain. Second, very useful use case, right? because it's other people's knowledge that are that is coming to me. Second use case of a company brain is kind of similar to what uh cloud tag is is a this idea of multiplayer and if you've been putting agents inside slack in places where multiple people can interact with it it's kind of being using using it as a shared AI right to like get stiff stuff done. Um, and an example of that could be collaborative incident management, right? So, for example, you want to say like, hey, I want to fetch logs. I want to investigate the there's an incident, go fetch some logs, investigate the code codebase, raise the PR, deploy to staging, deploy to prod, set up an alert, right? You want like multiple people are doing things with the company brain. So, those are kind of two use cases of the company brain. One is kind of this like shared collaborative knowledge use case and one is like shared AI use case itself, right? Both of those have a huge um security kind of problem, right? Um so to start to secure it, let's kind of define that a little bit more strongly, right? So what exactly is a company brain? And this is my definition of it, right? It's shared context that you'd put in a markdown that you'd put in a set of markdown files, right? and its access control rules for the different data and tools that you want to access as given to a coding agent. So that's what I'm calling it for um because I'm speaking so I can define whatever I want. Um that's my definition. So I'm not saying this is knowledge that is pulled into an LLM that will do tool calls, right? It is not a AI that is doing general purpose stuff. It is an AI that is a coding agent that is solving whatever problem you throw at it. Right? And similar to the a little bit of the previous talk that you folks might have heard which is this idea of like can we just use a coding agent to solve general problems. It's that right? So in the most trivial case if you say hey write me a tweet you're writing a small script that's making an AI call to write a small tweet right you probably don't need to do that. The AI itself can just like return the tweet back to you but like essentially claude code being used for everything. Cloud co-work is the same architecture. The codeex app is the same architecture which is this realization that you can use coding agents to solve general purpose problems. So we're building the brain for that. We're not building gigantic knowledge graph knowledge base for the company and then trying to secure it that anyway it doesn't hasn't worked won't work. Um, so in terms of how we want to approach designing the company brain, right? Should we build a company brain? So, if you're an enterprise and you're paid to twiddle your thumbs, then you like this idea of building a company brain because you're like, "Yes, let me take on a two-year project and I will build the company brain for JP Morgan." That's not going to happen. You can't build a company brain for an organization that's like 100 years old, right? you can barely build it for your own family, right? Which might just be months or years old, right? So, so the idea and the way that we want to build a company brain is we want each person who does a little bit of the work in the company to own and build their part of the company brain, right? That's the way we should build it. So, that's kind of constraint number two that I'm putting. One was the definition of the company brain and second is how the approach that we want to take for how a company brain is built. I like kind of this way of phrasing it, which is that we're going to grow a company brain. We're not going to build one, right? We're going to like let it let it come together. The system needs to come together otherwise it'll it'll it's not it's not possible to build. All right. Um broadly, we want to let each person self-s serve their bit of the company brain.

Um and so these are kind of like the various steps that you want to follow. I'll come back to this in more detail if we have time. But let's start with a particular use case, right? So in this particular use case, what I have is this kind of situation where this is kind of the tangible example I want to take for you folks. Um I got an email just a security questionnaire example, right? Hey, I got an email from Dave at StitchFix. Um and that has a bunch of questions I want to answer, right? So it pulls up my email. It says the email has a screenshot of their security onboarding and then it starts to kind of answer those questions, right? Um I have no idea how it knew. I was kind of very surprised to see that it answered all of the questions on like, hey, this is our trust center. This is how our security stuff looks. Um, they have a gateway, right? It does something. All of this is kind of coming from the company brain, right? Which is the answer to that. And then kind of go ahead and I'm like, hey, just go ahead and send this. I like this draft. Go ahead and send this draft to Dave, right? And then goes and sends that email. Really simple example of what I want to do. Now, the challenge here, right? And the issue is that how do we build a system right which somebody else can contribute to that a third person kind of uses how did this knowledge about what our security thing is come in presumably somebody else had been working on the same security questionnaire right so they had let's say a Hermes agent or whatever they were working on it you autosaved some memory maybe somebody wrote down a skill somehow that piece piece has to come to my AI agent. How are we going to make that possible right now? Um let's try obvious thing uh number one right which is that everybody writes shared skills for each other on GitHub. So the first time the security questionnaire was answered by your security person everybody visualize like your security and compliance person in your head right now. Imagine that they after answering the questionnaire, it sucks to answer questionnaires. After answering this gigantic Excel sheet of a of a questionnaire, they then went to GitHub and updated a shared skill, right? Many of you are fortunate to work with people who are modeled after our Lord and Savior Christ, who are so nice, who will go and update shared skills in a GitHub repo, right? Most people will not. Nobody is going to write skills for another person in GitHub like that is not that is not something that is natural to us right in the dayto-day of doing work we don't suddenly decide that ooh this might be really useful for somebody else I don't even know I'm not connected to in this situation in the future not happening I can barely get it to like curate my own memory and my context I do not have the time to send it to somebody else um to write it down for somebody [snorts] Second, instead of having a company brain, why don't you do a team brain? Why don't you all just use one shared? Why doesn't the security team kind of use one more shared silo where you can do this, right? So, build an agent and have it kind of save to memory itself, right? Um, and that's kind of the architecture that I I'm guessing a lot of you folks have with maybe something like a Hermes added to Slack. Does anybody have kind of a team team brain situation going where you have an AI that multiple people use that autosaves memory and auto adds context? Does anybody have kind of like a skill that does that already just for a small team? One. Anybody else? Okay. Okay. A few of you have that. That's cool. Um this is nice but the problem is it's still not a company brain because it's still isolated, right? So it's like one more silo, right? Like for example um if this gets like with claw tag um it it has a per channel memory right so in every channel it gets saved but now it's another silo in that one channel right so now it's again locked into one place that can't be used anywhere else so if somebody got added to that channel it would work but otherwise it wouldn't work right um and so this is the third option the third option is saying all context text goes into a single shared wiki.

A wiki is a set of markdown files and markdown files can link to each other. So imagine a gigantic folder. The folder has lots of markdown files, right? And markdown files can link to each other. So all all context instead of saving it inside a folder, siloing it, you put it in a markdown file, the equivalent of a markdown file, and you let it link with each other. The second thing that you do is you allow each file to have scopes on who can have readwrite access to that file. The third thing that you do which is the most important, you don't let the agent auto add the memory. You don't let it auto add because if it auto adds, you have no idea what happened, right? You can't the we we're back to kind of the same world where some stuff is getting added and as long as you're in that agent's memory, you're lucky, right? So, the third thing that you do is instead of letting the agent auto add, do something that allows your agent to suggest what is added with what scopes and then have the human accept or reject. So it's not as heavy as GitHub where I have to go and write this update a shared skill do a PR review and then get it merged but it's also not as yolo as the memory just kind of being autowritten by the agent right it's kind of the sweet spot where while you are working you pop it up suggest the right scopes and let somebody add it so now what happens is with this very simple addition right you are able to let people add to a gigantic wiki, but you let that person take on responsibility for what they can see or not. So, if I'm adding something to the finance wiki, I want to make sure I'm adding something that's sensitive, I want to make sure it has a finance scope. If I'm adding something that's personal, I want to make sure that that's personal scope. Let me show you an example UX of what that might look like. This is what we do. This was a recent email that I got um from one of our sales reps adding me onto a call. I looked at that email, helped answer it, and then I got a little box that suggested a bunch of bullets that told me what it's going to add, right? And when I hit add to wiki and and so now it's much easier for me to review what is getting added. I don't care I don't care if it gets added into this markdown file, that markdown file, what links that the agent takes care of. What I care about is are these facts correct? If these facts are correct, I'm going to hit add to wiki and I'm going to be done, right? And and during the time of add to wiki, I can choose what scopes need to be added per wiki page or not. Right? So each wiki page itself can get a certain set of scopes that you want to decide who gets access to what for example right so for example my email this is the wiki page that I have for my emails and how my emails are prioritized and I can now decide who gets access to this who are the owners for this and what the artback for this is. So whatever the system looks like is up to you folks but the core idea is that you want to get the agent to suggest a change instead of doing the change. All right. So, two rules. One, make sure that everything goes into one companywide wiki. Don't back down from this rule. Second, make sure that like as a part of that, every change is backed by a human's name. Nothing should be allowed inside the wiki that is Claude added this or like your AI agent added this or Hermes added this. No, Tanme added this. that that name needs to be there so that you can tie it back to this is the person who screwed up and like allowed everybody to see like everybody's comp right and like whatever now you can take remedial action uh right whatever that is put them on a pip um you didn't know how to edit a wiki so so that is very very important and rule number two once you decide that you can then go to the second scope of like okay you've got to make it easy for them to do that which is where this business of scopes come in where you want to scope each file according to who gets access you to build kind of a system around it. This is what an architecture diagram of that looks like where you have users um users talk to the agent uh agent when it's reading context uses that particular user's claims right so if I am reading something for solving a finance problem it's using the finance claim to read as me because I had access to the finance wiki so I can read it and that is done every single time right so the agent is always using the user's credential to read the right part of the wiki.

All right. I am um I'm fairly out of time for the second use case. So, what I'm going to do is give you a quick flavor of the second use case, but extend this idea. This is the daddy use case. This is like this is the big daddy use case. This is a really complicated use case because now it's not just one person answering an email. It's a bunch of us using the shared context to solve a problem with various different escalation like privilege levels at the same time, right? And these are kind of the these are the these are the interactions AI where the most amount of company brain knowledge is created, right? For example, I'm going to show you a quick real life example of um what it looks like for us. Um so this was a case from an SR situation where um somebody was like hey our autolearning our wiki learning uh fairly meta was failing it wasn't working what's going on right and then it starts doing the investigation and it sucks cuz it's it didn't have a skill it failed so like bro don't do this please use this open telemetry span name used an open telemetry span name it did a slightly better job but was still really slow so he looked at the code and he's like oh you're using a like query. You're you're a you're a dumbass. This is Opus 4.5. Um we like like don't do this. Right? So then he's like don't use a like query. Use an equals to query. Right? And then it does equals to query and it surfaces some details and it and then he says oh dig deeper into this and it says whatever this is a line of code where the error is coming from. Simple stuff right? This is now where it surfaces some knowledge and says aha I learned that I should use equals to and not like. Right? I learned that if you have a custom prefix added to wiki page names, it can cause issues, right? Um, so it offers these learnings that you can choose to accept. So he kind of went dug in deeper um into what the problem was. Somebody else joined the conversation, right? And said the technical decision that we've made here is wrong. Why is this happening? And now two people start to have an argument, right? They have an argument saying, hey, it should not be like this. it should be like this but why is it like this but it should be like this right that argument creates knowledge because the actual problem was that somebody made a technical decision that was not documented right when they decide to fix that issue and they observe that that is indeed the root cause and they decide that this is the way it's going to be fixed hey we should remove this prefix that's causing a problem whatever whatever the thing is that creates the highest quality context to be added to your brain because the previous suggestion was to say uh pages should not pages have a prefix. But the fact that pages have a prefix is a problem. Right? So now the thing that you're documenting in the brain is pages should not have a prefix. If they have a prefix, it can cause lookup issues and prod. This happens when multiple people talk to each other, right? And solve problems together. This is what happens in a Slack thread. When two people talk to each other and solve a problem, it creates the highest quality context. But and so so that's kind of what you want here. But the challenge is that the priv privilege escalation around this becomes very very serious. If you if you're building an agent that can do everything surrounded by multiple people, that's scary because the engineer was allowed to do the PR work but now I can use the same agent to deploy to prod. That's too scary. I can't have a conversation where I debug and deploy securely, right? Especially if you're in a bank, right? like the people who are debugging, deploying to staging, setting up an alert and deploying are not the same. But but being the same has a lot of value because that's where all the knowledge is, right? And so that kind of brings us to the second architecture which I'm not going to get into too much detail with, but think of it as the same idea where user credentials and claims were used to read context. Instead of that, also use user credentials, right, when the code is executing tools. So never store credentials in the sandbox. Instead of that at the HTTP layer, at the SQL layer, inject the user's credentials, allowing the AI to behave as the human in a particular interaction, right? Um so there's interesting details here. Um but that is what allows a shared AI to work with shared context, right? And those are kind of the two um key pieces to work with. So I would summarize and you'll this architecture is not particularly complicated, but it's very simple to work back from these two rules. Do not store credentials in the cloud sandbox. And second, virtualize all interactions with real data. Proxy it, virtualize it, whatever word you want to use. And let users control them. So the user who adds a particular tool should control who gets access uh to that particular tool. So you can derive this entire thing if you just kind of follow these four principles and work backwards from that. there's only one architecture that is possible that makes sense uh in how you manage context and what constraints you set up and how you manage tools and what security rules you set up. Um that is my time um and and so um happy to chat more um after the talk um we have a booth as well so happy to chat more through that on what the nuances inside this architecture are. I'm Tanme on Twitter. Um we're called PromQL. Um do check us out um at the end of the day um with the AI engineering community. We're going to do a product launch. Uh and so I would love to share that folks share that with everybody. I'm going to take a picture with everybody on stage so that I can uh I can share that. And so let me let me do that while I'm here. All right. Do folks want to say cheese? [laughter] Thank you so much. Um so watch out for that. Um it's our approach to um claude tag which is prompt tag which is very similar to the ideas that we tag chatted about here except that you're not stuck to cloud you can use GLM and you can use GPT and then soul comes out and we can use that and have a lot of fun. Um so do check that out and otherwise I'll see you folks soon.