Can you repair a workflow someone else built?
Yes, subject to authorized access and enough context to reproduce the failure. The first milestone can be diagnosis when the cause is unclear. A rebuild is proposed only if the findings justify it.
Fix an existing automation
Make & n8n AI Workflow Repair
Diagnose and repair broken Make or n8n workflows, webhook routing, API mappings, and Claude or OpenAI output handling. Start with one reproducible failure and an agreed acceptance check.
Get a failing AI workflow back to a testable state.
Good fit
- Teams with an existing Make or n8n automation
- A webhook, API, or database update that behaves inconsistently
- Claude or OpenAI outputs that break downstream steps
- An owner who can supply sanitized examples and approved access
Problems this can address
- Unexpected JSON or missing fields stop the next step
- Webhook payloads route to the wrong branch
- Retries can repeat an action or leave an incomplete record
- Confirmation, human approval, or failure recovery is missing
Deliverables
What the scope includes
- A reproducible description of the agreed failure
- Changes to the affected workflow or integration
- Checks for the agreed success and failure paths
- Review of duplicate-action and approval behavior where relevant
- A change summary and operating or handoff notes
How this engagement works
Each stage has a decision and a documented output.
- 1
Review the failure and agree the first milestone
- 2
Reproduce the problem using approved examples
- 3
Repair and check the affected paths together
- 4
Document the change and agree any remaining work
What to bring
- Describe the trigger, expected output, and actual behavior
- Name the tools and relevant integrations
- Provide a sanitized failure example or error message
- Identify who can approve and test the change
Related work and examples
Common questions
Do you work with both Make and n8n?
Both are supported capabilities. Public completed-client evidence currently includes Make.com work; the public portfolio also describes an n8n, API, and human-review workflow.
What should I send first?
Send the tool names, trigger, expected result, actual result, and a redacted error message. Do not send credentials or private customer records through the public contact form.
Do I need the full paid assessment?
Not for every repair. A contained issue can use an agreed first milestone. A broader assessment is useful when the workflow, dependencies, or risks are not yet understood.
Related guidance and work
Bring one workflow
Do not send confidential files. Start with the process, approximate volume, current systems, review owner, and desired output.
Request this scope