Multi-Agent Workflows
Bind every multi-agent delegation step as a ZK proof. The final output carries a verifiable trace back to the original principal.
Who this is for.
An orchestrator calls sub-agents. Sub-agents reach external tools via MCP. When something goes wrong in that chain — wrong decision, data leak, unexpected access — are you still piecing together "who authorized whom for what" from logs and agent memory?
-
AI platform and product leads rolling out multi-agent orchestration
-
Engineering leads building tool ecosystems on MCP servers and A2A protocols
-
AI governance leads in regulated industries (finance, healthcare, public sector) where the agent chain has to be auditable
Hand over the source, or just the facts?
Change what reaches the AI, and the leakage risk goes with it.
- workflow:
- order-fulfillment
- agents:
- [A-001-intake, A-002-process, A-003-ship]
- log:
- per-agent action logs…
- attestation:
- ? (chain legitimacy unknown)
- agent:
- did:lemma:agent-A-003-ship
- delegatedBy:
- did:lemma:agent-A-002 → A-001 → root-org
- role:
- shipping_agent
- chain:
- [intake-proof, process-proof, ship-proof]
- scope:
- workflow://order-fulfillment/*
- validUntil:
- 2026-12-31
- ZK verified:
- ✓ VALID
At each delegation step in a multi-agent workflow, Lemma generates a ZK proof that binds delegator, delegatee, scope, and timestamp. Proofs are anchored on-chain; each agent operation carries the delegation proof downstream. Tools and APIs verify the cryptographic authority of the caller, not the agent's self-attestation, before responding.
The final output carries a complete proof chain — from the original principal, through every re-delegation node, down to each tool result. When something goes wrong, you don't reconstruct it from logs; each step's authority and data access is already a cryptographic fact you can reference directly.
Where the delegation-proof layer fits into your current agent orchestration and MCP integration is what we map out in a first conversation.
Choose on three criteria.
Only work that needs all three at once — pass without exposing, independent verification, tamper-proof — is Lemma's domain.
| Method | Pass without exposing | Independent verification | Tamper-proof |
|---|---|---|---|
| Access control only | △ | ✗ | ✗ |
| Masking / anonymization | △ | ✗ | ✗ |
| Encryption only | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ |
| Lemma (ZK proof)the only one with all 3 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
What's next
We enter through an agent-orchestration review and a PoC, and stay alongside you through to operations.
- A 30-minute review — identify the paths / workflows stalled by delegation traceability.
- Narrow to 1–2 decisions (results) to prove — e.g. "delegated within this scope," "the caller holds authority" — the facts passed downstream. Not the implementation or tool specs.
- Design connection and scope-tightening — connection to your existing orchestrator / MCP / A2A integration, and monotonic scope narrowing at each re-delegation.
- Prove one delegation path via a (quote-based) PoC.
- Hands-on support from rollout through operations — existing plan tiers (Civic / Critical / Compliance) serve only as a cost reference; the setup and pricing are designed together.
Tell us one path where "want to delegate but can't trace it" applies, in the first 30 minutes. No agent implementation or tool spec details required.
The bigger picture
The bigger picture this use case belongs to.
We map use scenarios across industries and workflows by the four axes.
See use scenarios for Agent Authority in Solutions →TRY LEMMA
Run it yourself.
No sales call needed — start hands-on with Lemma's products.