Business situation
A London accountancy practice has agreed to act for ABC Limited. Before work starts, someone must create the client record, prepare the engagement letter, request identity and company documents, set the client up in Xero and complete the practice’s anti-money laundering review. Most of that is administration. The AML review is not: it is the practice’s own judgement, and it must never be shared with the client.
Why existing tools alone are insufficient
An AI assistant can draft an engagement letter and a document request quickly. But if onboarding documents, AML notes and client correspondence all sit in the same folders the AI can reach, the AI can read — and repeat — the practice’s risk assessment. Nothing in a chat tool distinguishes a document that is safe to share from one that must stay internal.
Systems involved
- KroyDB — the new client entity, its services, contacts and onboarding state.
- SharePoint — engagement letter templates.
- Outlook — the document request draft.
- Xero — where the client contact is created.
Kroy architecture
Claude connects to Kroy. Two Skills are enabled for the client services team. Onboard New Client may create the entity, draft documents and create Outlook drafts and a Xero contact. Prepare AML Checklist may assemble the checklist from the documents received, but completing the review is reserved for the nominated officer. The AML review is an internal field on the client entity. It is not in the client projection.
Workflow
- A manager asks Claude: “Set up ABC Limited as a new client — accounts and corporation tax.”
- Claude requests
entity.create. Kroy creates the client entity with its services and sets the onboarding state to Engagement pending. - Claude drafts the engagement letter from the practice’s template with
artifact.createand requests the partner’s approval. - Claude requests
outlook.draft.createfor a document request to the director andxero.contacts.createfor the client contact. Kroy permits both. - Once documents arrive, the manager asks: “Prepare the AML checklist.” Claude requests
aml.checklist.prepare. Kroy permits it; the checklist lists what has been received and what is missing. - The manager asks: “Mark the AML review as complete.” Claude requests
aml.review.complete. Kroy refuses: only the nominated officer may complete an AML review. - The practice opens a client Channel for ABC Limited. Kroy builds it from the client projection, which excludes the AML review and its notes.
Agent permissions
Claude acts under the manager’s delegation. It can create and draft, but cannot send email, approve the engagement letter or complete the AML review. It cannot read completed AML reviews for other clients.
Human permissions
The partner approves the engagement letter. The nominated officer completes the AML review. The manager sends the document request from the draft.
State changes
- ABC Limited exists as a client entity, linked to its Xero contact.
- The onboarding state moves from Engagement pending to Documents requested, then AML review.
- The AML checklist is attached to the entity as an internal record.
Audit outcome
Kroy records the entity creation, each draft, the Xero contact, the checklist and the refused completion request — with the manager, the agent and the Skill that decided each.
External sharing
ABC Limited’s director can use the client Channel, including with their own AI, to see what documents are still needed. The AML review is not in the projection, so there is nothing for their AI to find.
Security considerations
- The internal/external boundary is set in the projection, not left to the AI.
- The reserved action is enforced by Kroy, so it holds even if the AI is told otherwise.
- Credentials for Xero and Microsoft 365 stay in Kroy.
Setup requirements
- A client entity type with an internal AML section in KroyDB.
- Xero and Microsoft 365 connected to Kroy.
- Claude connected to Kroy.
- The two Skills enabled, with the nominated officer’s role configured.