Use Case 001 · Marketing Agentic Intelligence · May 2026

3.8× pipeline. Zero subscription seats. The customer owns the platform.

A marketing agentic intelligence platform built in weeks, handed over outright. Now compounding pipeline on infrastructure the customer controls, not rents.

3.8×
Pipeline lift
$388K
Capacity unlocked
340
Hrs/mo reclaimed
7 days
To handover
Talk to us →
Section 02 · Context

Series B SaaS, 22 GTM seats, two competing pitches on the table.

Series B SaaS, ~$8M ARR, GTM lead running a four-person marketing team against a US mid-market motion. The brief was straightforward: more pipeline without more headcount, and a content engine that could ship twice as much without burning the team.

They walked in with two competing pitches on the table.

"Our agentic CRM gives your team a unified workspace with embedded sales, marketing, and CS agents. Per-seat pricing, fully managed runtime. You'll be live in 60 days." Series C agentic-CRM vendor · Reevo/Monaco-class
"We'll embed a pod inside your team for six months. We own the platform, you focus on the GTM. Quarterly retainer, our cloud, our agents." Managed-service AI shop · mid-market

Both quotes priced the customer out of optionality. One rented the runtime. The other rented the team.

Section 03 · The Problem

Fourteen tools, two writers, one compliance flag, and no quote that didn't end in a permanent line item.

The stack had drifted to 14 tools: outbound, enrichment, sequencing, scoring, sequencing again, content generation, attribution, three different inboxes. Content velocity was capped by the two humans who could write to brand. Compliance had flagged the audit-trail story on every vendor they'd talked to.

The subscription path quoted $200–$400 per seat per month, growing with every GTM hire. The small print made it worse. Exceed your credit allocation and you pay a premium on the overage; stay under it and you get silently throttled. The math meant agentic capability was now a permanent line item that scaled against them, not with them. The unit economics belonged to the vendor either way.

The Cloon path inverts that. Targeted agents handle the prompting on the customer's behalf in an AGI-shaped way. The customer's team doesn't author prompts into someone else's system, the orchestrator's agents do. Token usage stays predictable regardless of seat count, because the agents themselves shape the workload.

Sitting still cost them the quarter. Picking the wrong vendor cost them the codebase.

Section 04 · What We Built

One platform. Two products. Zero Cloon billing in the loop after day 7.

A marketing agentic intelligence platform that powers two products on shared infrastructure: an agentic lead-gen engine and a sales-qualifying engine. Both feed the customer's Attio CRM through the Attio API, both run on the customer's own foundation-model account, both deployed into the customer's GitHub org on day one. No Cloon login, no Cloon runtime, no Cloon billing in the loop. One shared platform, not two siloed point tools the customer would have to integrate themselves later.

The five-agent roster sits on top of one orchestrator with one audit-trail surface, one observability stack, and one token-spend dashboard. The customer pays for the platform once, then runs two products on it indefinitely.

Kickoff Monday. Handover the following Monday. Seven days, end to end.

Cloon exited at day 7. The customer's GTM lead has been the operator since.

Section 05 · How It Works

Five agents, split across the two products on the shared platform.

Lead-gen engine: Router + Enrichment + Content

Sales-qualifying engine: Qualification + Handover

Both products share one audit store the customer's compliance team picked on day zero, one retention policy, one region. Token economics stay predictable because the agents shape the workload. The customer's team is not prompting into someone else's system seat by seat.

Section 06 · Numbers

Seven proof points. Six months post-handover.

What the customer kept
  • Orchestrator codebase: repo in their GitHub org, deployable to any cloud.
  • Agent roster: every prompt, tool definition, routing rule, versioned in their repo.
  • Audit-trail configuration: retention policy, access controls, log destination set day 0 by their compliance team.
  • Token-spend dashboard: direct foundation-model billing, no vendor markup, no per-seat math.
  • Vendor-portability docs: how to swap the foundation model, vector store, or CRM connector without rebuilding.

A subscription would have given them a login. A managed service would have kept all of this on the vendor's side of the contract.

Own the harness, rent only the model.
Subscription math
  • Equivalent agentic-CRM stack at this customer's seat count: ~$315K / year, growing with headcount.
  • Cloon build, one-time: $102K. Two priority products on a shared agentic system, with uptime monitoring built in, fully owned by the customer.
  • Customer's actual foundation-model run-rate after handover: $110 / month, flat to usage. Targeted agents keep token usage predictable regardless of seat count.
  • Year-one delta in the customer's favor: ~$212K. The gap widens every quarter the customer hires.

Subscription-stack composition: Outreach + Gong + HubSpot Data Hub Enterprise + Clay Growth + RevOps reporting layer at 22 seats. List pricing as of May 2026.

"We were one signature away from a six-figure agentic-CRM contract. We picked the build because we wanted the option to swap models next year without rebuilding the company on top of someone else's runtime. Six months in, the orchestrator is doing the work of two hires we didn't make, and the codebase is sitting in our repo, not theirs." GTM lead · Series B SaaS · anonymized

Stop renting the agent. Own the layer.

Talk to us →