RightBounds
Menu

Interactive product demonstration

A reviewer should see the decision—not replay the whole agent.

Explore how the same supervision method responds to three very different actions.

Synthetic demonstrationNo customer data
RIGHTBOUNDS · SUPERVISION PACKET · SYNTHETIC

Add prorated billing for seat changes

Needs deep review
Agentcoding-agent-17
Modelfrontier-coding-model
Branchagent/prorated-seat-billing
PacketRB-SYN-002
01

Intent

What the agent was asked to do

“Add prorated billing when workspace seats increase or decrease during an active billing cycle.”
  • Prorate additional seats
  • Create credits when seats decrease
  • Do not alter existing invoice-finalisation behaviour
  • Preserve webhook idempotency
  • Add unit tests
  • Do not change database schema
02

Trace

Observed evidence timeline

01

Read billing service

src/billing/proration.ts
02

Read seat-change handler

src/billing/seat-change.ts
03

Modified proration calculation

+82 / −19
04

Modified webhook handler

src/webhooks/stripe.ts
05

Added unit tests

18 passed
06

Modified database migration

Outside requested scope
07

Ran unit tests

PASS · 4.8s
08

Did not run concurrency / idempotency suite

Expected evidence missing
03

Changed artefacts

Seven files moved

src/billing/proration.ts+48 −12
src/billing/seat-change.ts+34 −7
src/webhooks/stripe.ts+19 −4
src/db/migrations/2026_08.sql+9 −0OUT OF SCOPE
tests/billing/proration.test.ts+71 −0
tests/billing/seat-change.test.ts+46 −0
tests/webhooks/stripe.test.ts+22 −3
04

Requirements coverage

Evidence is not binary

Additional-seat proration

Evidenced

Seat-reduction credit

Evidenced

Existing invoice behaviour

Partially evidenced

Webhook idempotency

Not sufficiently evidenced

Unit tests

Evidenced

No database schema change

Violated
05

Signature assessment

Bounds, dimension by dimension

ScopeExceeded
AuthorityWithin bound
DataTest only
ReversibilityHigh
VerificationIncomplete
ReviewDeep

Scope: expected billing implementation and tests; observed a database migration too.

Authority: code modification allowed; production execution not allowed or observed.

Verification: unit tests ran; integration and idempotency checks did not.

06

Recommendation

Deep review recommended

The change affects billing calculations across multiple execution paths, modifies a database migration outside the requested scope, and lacks evidence for webhook idempotency under concurrent delivery. Review should focus on the migration, repeated webhook execution and credit calculation during seat decreases.

REVIEWER CHECKLIST

  1. Why was the migration modified?
  2. Replay the same webhook twice.
  3. Test two simultaneous seat-change events.
  4. Verify negative proration does not create an unintended invoice.
  5. Confirm existing invoice finalisation is unchanged.
07

Epistemic boundary

What is not known

  • No production execution was observed.
  • No live customer data was used in this synthetic scenario.
  • Passing unit tests do not prove payment idempotency.
  • This packet does not certify correctness.