We build Agents. You build the Future.
● Business offer — Human resourcesHR AI agent: answer your staff and smooth the onboarding
“How many days of leave do I have left?”, “how do I report sick leave?”, “where do I find my certificate?”: the HR team answers the same questions every day, at the expense of the substantive work. Your HR AI agent answers them instantly and guides new arrivals. Hosted in France — on local inference or an isolated resource — staff data stays under control. The HR team keeps the decision.
Updated on
Fictional simulation — not a client result
Your onboarding path (badge, workstation, access, welcome meeting) is ready. Leave: on contract since the 1st of the month, you have accrued 2.08 days; the balance will update automatically.
⛓ Source · your HR system + the internal staff handbook
I can pre-fill the employer's certificate and notify your manager, subject to the HR team's approval.
✎ Action · certificate ready for review — the HR team approves
For an organisation established outside the European Union, the law of its own country applies; at its request, we put equivalent safeguards in place (human review before any action, a log of the criteria, information for the people concerned).
A Blue Lemon Agent agent for HR answers staff's everyday questions — leave, payroll, health cover, procedures, remote working — around the clock, smooths the onboarding of new arrivals, manages the HR documentation, prepares standard documents, appraisals and tracking summaries. Checking a vacancy’s required criteria — qualification, years of experience, licence, clearance — and analysing applications belong to the CV analysis agent (ENT-UC-006), billed separately. It relieves the HR team of the repetitive requests. Data hosted in France; the AI model is called at its publisher, except with the Sovereign model option. With that option, sensitive staff data is never exposed to a foreign service, architecture designed to reduce exposure to extraterritorial legislation, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity. HR decisions stay human.
Reference points describing our offer, not results measured at a client. The scale of the gain is confirmed by a pilot on your own scope.
Indicative estimate, to be confirmed by a pilot on your real files (general terms of sale, article 4).
Three options, one agent
An HR agent (answers to staff, onboarding, HR documentation, standard documents, preparing appraisals, summaries & tracking), installed and operated for you. Checking a vacancy’s required criteria and analysing applications belong to the CV analysis agent, billed separately. Choose according to how you are organised. Prices exclude VAT — annual subscription, the time it takes for the gains to settle in.
Setup + controlled subscription
- Installation, configuration and training for your teams
- Operation, human oversight, updates and support
- Hosting in France, a dedicated and isolated resource
All inclusive, no setup fee
- Setup included (installation, configuration, training)
- Operation, human oversight, updates and support
- Hosting in France, managed end to end
On site, you own it
- Hardware installed on your premises (you own it)
- French / European AI models run locally
- Secure remote maintenance (Pro support included)
The uses of AI in an HR department
Here are the capabilities included in the agent, then the neighbouring agents that can be added to it. The agent carries out by itself what you authorise it to do; you decide what it does on its own and what it submits to you, and HR decisions stay human.
Answers to staff
Leave, payroll, health cover, procedures, remote working: the agent answers everyday questions instantly, around the clock.
Boundary: drafts answers from approved HR sources, with no individual, disciplinary, pay or legal decision.
Onboarding new arrivals
A guided arrival path, documents to provide, welcome FAQ: the new arrival finds their answers straight away.
Boundary: covers the checklist, reminders and signposting, not the design or delivery of a training path, which belongs to the internal training agent (ENT-UC-012).
HR documentation
Centralises the procedures, the staff handbook and the templates, and watches that personnel files are complete.
Boundary: finds and summarises approved rules and documents, without managing their lifecycle, permissions or versioning, which belong to the HR document management agent (ENT-UC-026).
Standard documents
Writes certificates, letters and standard replies from your templates — for the HR team to approve.
Boundary: prepares pre-approved templates for a human to validate, with no signature and no HR decision.
Preparing appraisals
Prepares evaluation grids and question outlines for annual and career appraisals, with no appraisal or rating of the employee.
Boundary: prepares outlines, agendas and questions, with no scoring, ranking, selection or decision about a person.
Summaries & tracking
Recaps the requests handled, the recurring reasons and the subjects the HR team should anticipate.
Boundary: consolidates facts, actions and deadlines, without producing an evaluation of its own.
Checking a vacancy’s required criteria — qualification, years of experience, licence, clearance — and analysing applications against the criteria you have set is the job of the CV analysis agent (ENT-UC-006), billed separately. The decision rests with the recruiter, and neither agent ranks people.
Need to go further?
These agents handle a different business process, with their own owner and their own price. They are added to this one.
Required criteria & application analysis
Checking a vacancy’s required criteria — qualification, years of experience, licence, clearance — with the wording in the file that supports it, then analysing each application against the criteria you have set: that is the job of the CV analysis agent, billed separately. A point not mentioned is marked as such, never inferred, and the decision stays with the recruiter.
CV analysis + vacancy matching agent from 334 € excl. VAT / month Discover the agent →Internal training
A well-written procedure is only useful if it is found at the right moment.
Internal training agent (tutor, quizzes) from 281 € excl. VAT / month Discover the agent →HR document management
A complete employee record is both an obligation and a peace of mind: contract, variations, medical check-ups, authorisations, training.
HR document management agent from 370 € excl. VAT / month Discover the agent →Activity reports
The periodic report always lands when you have the least time, and preparing it mostly consists of gathering figures that already exist.
Activity report assistant from 294 € excl. VAT / month Discover the agent →In 30 minutes we identify the most relevant agent — without oversizing the project.
See the agent at work
5 everyday situations, taken from those that come up most often. Pick one: the exchange unfolds as it would in your organisation.
A scripted demonstration. These exchanges show how the agent behaves — its sources, its refusals, what it leaves to your teams. Nothing is sent from this page, no model is queried here, and the matters named are fictional. That is precisely what we promise your data. The behaviours shown here — monitoring, automation rules, routing and reminders — are configured with you during deployment, from your tools, your rules and your thresholds. The architecture points named in these exchanges — location, local execution, isolation, encryption, role-based access, logging — are not a guarantee attached to the demonstration: they are those of the architecture set out in your quotation, and verified before commissioning.
Fictional simulation — not a client result
· Eleven employees have more than 30 days of untaken leave, spotted four months before the end of the period — the lead time needed to plan them calmly. Seven of them are in the same department: that is where the organising happens.
· One question comes back 47 times in three months — and I found its answer: it is written and signed in a company agreement nobody had the time to reopen. Making it reachable makes the 47 enquiries fall away.
· Fourteen periodic health checks are past their date, three of them by more than six months — the list and the slot requests are already drafted.
· An employee has reached 22 months on short-term contracts and your agreement provides for a review at 24 months — two months' notice to prepare it. morning-watch_4-findings.pdf4 findings · 1 agreement to publish
⛓ Source · leave balances, company agreements, health check tracking, live contracts
The question, as it recurs: "can I take a half-day against a day of leave?" — 47 times, in 9 wordings.
What I looked for: an answer in your welcome booklet, your staff notices and your intranet. Nothing. Then I found it in the company agreement of 14/03/2023, article 6 — which is published nowhere and which I have only because you opened it to me.
What that means: the answer exists, it is written, it is signed, and making it available is enough for those 47 requests to disappear.
What I have prepared: for this question and for the 12 others this quarter whose answer sleeps in an unpublished document, the answer written out in plain terms, with the article cited and its date — thirteen paragraphs ready to go into the welcome booklet, without publishing the agreement itself. Those 12 represent 184 enquiries.
What is yours to do, and it is no formality: deciding what is communicated, and in what form. Publishing a company agreement and publishing the answer to a question do not have the same effect — the first opens the whole text to reading, the second answers what was asked. You choose the form; all thirteen answers are written. 12-questions_184-enquiries.pdfWritten answer · ready to publish
⛓ Source · 47 questions, company agreement of 14/03/2023 art. 6, published documents
Routing follows what expires: a contract end date goes to HR and the manager, four months ahead — not at the last moment, because the decision needs a conversation; overdue health checks to HR, as one list; untaken leave to the manager of the department concerned, not to the employee — it is a workload before it is a personal choice; a question with no published answer to HR.
With a chase: 7 days, except a contract end within 60 days — 48 hours. Then a monthly summary: by subject and by department, never by employee.
What this frees up right away: 184 enquiries this quarter come down to 12 questions whose answer is already written and signed somewhere — publish them, and the HR team gets those hours back for the substantive work. The 14 overdue health checks go out as one list, the 11 leave balances to the department manager four months before the deadline, and the 22-month contract before it becomes an emergency.
The access stays yours: opened by role — each person sees only what concerns them —, logged, withdrawn on a word, and employee data does not leave the company, local inference with the 100% Sovereign package; with the Agility and Serenity packages, data hosted in France, AI model called at its publisher except with the Sovereign model option.
The HR decision belongs to the named person, and I hand it over in minutes: the question, its answer quoted to the article of your own agreement, the list of records concerned and the standard letter already drafted. I rely on your agreements and your notes, never on a rule of law recited from memory — that is what makes my answer hold up in your house. And as soon as an exchange suggests danger, harassment, discrimination or distress, it hands over to a person, immediately: that is the one time an employee should find somebody, not an agent.
✎ Framework · no law quoted from memory — your agreements only
Fictional simulation — not a client result
The message displayed, as it stands: "I am not the right contact for this situation, and I am not going to ask you questions. Here is who can see you: [harassment officer], [occupational health], [staff representatives]. You can also write to [address] — that message does not pass through me."
What happens next: the exchange stops. I do not ask since when, or what happened, or the manager's name.
Why not "just" gather the facts: because gathering facts is an act, and because what is written to a tool is written somewhere. An employee describing a sensitive situation to an automatic assistant has not chosen who will read it, or when.
What I do in parallel, and this is what protects the person: nothing leaves, nothing is kept. I alert nobody, I create no flag, and I do not keep the message. Telling HR that an employee mentioned their manager would expose the person instead of protecting them.
The list of expressions triggering that stop is written down, consultable and extendable — 61 formulations, deliberately broad. 61-formulations_stop.pdf61 expressions · no alert · nothing kept
✎ Framework · 61 stop formulations — no alert, nothing kept
What I display: the emergency numbers, first, before even the internal contacts — and the message stays on screen until it is closed.
What does not change, and it is what protects the person: no details asked, no department alerted, no message kept. The rule does not change because the situation is more serious: it changes because the referral becomes external to the company.
Why the referral goes outside rather than to an internal department: what is happening, whether the person is safe, and who inside the company may be involved are, at that moment, known to them alone. An automatic alert to an HR department may land with the wrong person; an emergency number always lands in the right place.
What belongs to the company, and it is exactly what gives the referral its value: naming contacts, making them reachable, and saying so. An agent does not stand in for that, and it should not.
What I spotted in time, and it takes one line to settle: two of the three contacts I cite have, across your documents, a published role and no contact details yet. So I cite their role — and publishing their details makes the referral reachable first time.
It is the most useful action I can propose on this page. contacts_details-to-publish.pdfNumbers first · no internal alert
✎ Framework · emergency numbers first — 2 of 3 contacts with no details
Fictional simulation — not a client result
Over the quarter: 1,240 questions. I handled 870 end to end, each with the document cited. 370 went to a person.
What I answer: questions whose answer is in your agreements, your internal rules, your collective agreement as you opened it to me, or your staff notices. I give the document, the article and its date — and the employee can open it.
What I hand over, and the 370 split into four: 142 concern an individual situation — a balance, a particular case, a request for an exception; 104 have no answer in any document; 63 call for a decision — special leave, an adjustment; 61 are stops, in the sense of the previous tab.
What I do with the 142 individual situations rather than answering them on average: I build each one's file before handing it over — the applicable article quoted, the balance rebuilt from your counters, and the precise question left to settle. HR receives a question ready to answer, not a ticket to open: 14 minutes' handling on average, against 38 before. Why the file rather than the direct answer: because "in principle, you are entitled to…" is the wording to avoid at all costs here — it is right on average and wrong for the person reading it. The file carries that person's own balance, and it can be checked. 1240-questions_370-handed-over.pdf870 handled · 370 handed over, in 4 reasons
⛓ Source · 1,240 questions this quarter, agreements cited
What I could do: quote an article, a period, a threshold. It would look right and often would be.
Why I do not: a statute changes; a collective agreement may provide something more favourable, and it is that which then applies; and a company agreement may change the result again. An answer ignoring those three levels is wrong even when the article quoted is accurate.
What I do instead: I search your agreements, your collective agreement and your internal rules, in that order, and I tell you which applies and why.
Across the 104 questions with no answer in your documents: 71 concern a subject your agreements do not cover — and that is information in itself. The other 33 concern documents you have not opened to me.
What I propose: the 71 subjects, ranked by number of questions. The top five account for 44 enquiries a quarter, and they are five subjects to settle once. 104-questions_71-uncovered-subjects.pdf5 subjects · 44 enquiries a quarter
✎ Framework · no law quoted from memory — three levels checked
What the HR documentation gathers: your 4 company agreements with their amendments and dates, the internal rules, the collective agreement as you opened it to me, 31 service notes found in three different places, the welcome handbook, and 17 templates — certificates, letters, standard replies.
What laying it out makes fixable straight away: 6 service notes contradict each other in pairs on three subjects — leave request deadlines, the priority order when dates clash, and travel expense coverage. I serve both, with their dates, and I raise them to you together because separately each author believes the other is current. And 9 documents carry no date at all: I serve them saying so.
Completeness of personnel files: across 247 files, 31 are incomplete — 19 times the same document, a certificate requested after the confirmation screen of the hiring form. The cause is the order of the screens, not the employees: correcting that order closes the 19 cases. I hand you the list by missing document, not by employee.
What that changes in your figures: your 370 questions escalated to a person this quarter fall into 41 subjects, of which 14 now have an answer in the HR documentation. Over the following quarter, escalated questions fall from 370 to 244. The honest figure: 244 remain, and the 27 remaining subjects have no written answer anywhere — I hand them to you ranked by volume, and that is the list of what you still have to write.
⛓ Source · 4 agreements, 31 service notes, 6 contradictions, 31 incomplete files of 247, 370 → 244 escalations
Onboarding for new joiners: a path in 22 steps, ordered by what a person actually meets in order — badge and access on day 1, health cover within 8 days, expense claim at the first spend, leave in the first month — and not by issuing department. Each step carries the document to provide, who receives it, and the deadline where one exists. For the 4 September starters, the 4 paths are already built, with the documents already obtained ticked off: 3 of the 4 files are complete, the fourth awaits a certificate.
What onboarding fixes upstream: new joiners account for 38 % of the questions in their first six weeks, and three quarters of those questions sit inside the 22 steps. They are asked because nobody says what comes in which order, not because the information is missing.
Preparing the annual reviews: for each of the 62 reviews, a question framework drawn from your agreement of 14/03/2023 and the evaluation grid in force, the factual reminder of the role, length of service, training completed and the objectives written last year, and the list of points left open at the last review. The mandatory documents — career review every two years, six-year stocktake — are dated per employee: 11 career reviews are due before December.
What review preparation contains and never will: the framework, the dated facts and the written objectives. No appraisal, no rating, no ranking of employees. The reason is mechanical, not moral: an appraisal produced by an agent would be read as the employer's opinion when it is nobody's opinion — and the manager would carry it into the room with no way to source it. Facts can be sourced: each points to its record and its date.
Summaries and tracking, for the HR team: each month, requests handled by reason, the reasons that are growing, the subjects with no written answer, the deadlines for the next three months — 11 career reviews, 14 medical check-ups, 2 probation ends — and what last month announced and was not done. Summaries count by reason and by department, never by employee.
⛓ Source · 22 onboarding steps, 4 paths built, 62 review frameworks, 11 career reviews due before December
Fictional simulation — not a client result
What I record: eleven employees exceed 30 days of untaken leave four months before the end of the period. Seven are in department B, which has 19 people.
What that says: these are not eleven individual choices. A department where seven of nineteen people could not take their leave describes a workload, not preferences.
Why the reminder does not go to the eleven employees: a "remember to book your leave" sent to somebody who could not book it is an unpleasant remark, and it changes nothing about the workload that stopped them.
What I do: the flag goes to the manager of department B, with the department figure and the company figure — and to the four other managers, separately, for their own people.
And I attach what makes action possible: the five weeks in the four months remaining where department B's forecast workload is lowest, and how many days of leave would fit into each without dropping below the minimum staffing the department set itself. The manager decides against a calendar, not against a reminder.
What I produce, with the scope set by role: each manager receives the named list of their own people — it is the one they need in order to decide — and management receives the volumes by department, with no names. No named list travels beyond the manager concerned; access is logged and withdrawn with a word. It is that split that makes the flag usable: a list everybody can see stops being used to book leave and starts being used to comment.
What that allows: four months is still time to reorganise. At six weeks, the only remaining margin is carry-over. 11-employees_7-one-department.pdf7 of 19 in one department · 4 months left
⛓ Source · leave balances, headcount by department, reference period
What I record: fourteen periodic checks whose date, as set in your own tracking, has passed. Three by more than six months.
What I rely on, and why it is the only legitimate footing: the date your own tracking recorded for each employee. The frequency depends on the post, on health, and on the individual monitoring decided by the occupational health service — three things I do not have and must not have. If the date has passed, I flag it; if it is wrong, it is the tracking that needs correcting — and I tell you which of the fourteen is inconsistent with the hire date: there are two.
What I do not keep: no health information, no fitness opinion, no restriction. I see a date and a name, nothing else — and that is exactly what allows this tracking to exist without any health data circulating.
What I have prepared: the fourteen in one list to HR, sorted by how long they have been overdue, and the slot request to the occupational health service already drafted for the three over six months.
What I propose: a flag 30 days before each date rather than after. 14-checks_no-health-data.pdfA date and a name · nothing else
⛓ Source · health check tracking, recorded dates
Fictional simulation — not a client result
The question: how many days' notice are required to move an already-booked holiday at the company's request.
What your documents say, and they do not say the same thing: the company agreement of 12/03/2019, article 7.2: one month. The staff notice of 04/02/2024, point 3: fifteen days, « to take account of activity peaks ». Both are in force, neither repeals the other in writing.
The point that had not yet been defined in my answering rule: I answer from the document that deals with the question, with its article and its date. Nothing in it says what I do when two of your documents deal with the same question differently. So I did not answer on my own — and no one is waiting: the question is acknowledged, and both texts are out, quoted and dated.
Three ways of doing it. Answer with the more recent: the simplest reading, but a staff notice does not substitute itself for a signed agreement. Answer with the agreement alone: it is the higher-ranking text, but your organisation has been applying the notice for two years and the answer would contradict the practice. Answer with both, name the contradiction, apply the agreement in the meantime, and take the point to HR management: the employee has an accurate answer today, and the contradiction is finally on a table.
I recommend the third. It is the only one that does not settle in my place a question that belongs to you, and an answer that quotes two texts with their dates is stronger than an answer that hides one of them.
You can also give me another one — for instance: apply the staff notice and tell me so in writing, until an amendment to the agreement is negotiated.
Shall I remember it for the next ones? Across the quarter's 1,240 questions, 34 were on this subject, and I have found 3 pairs of documents that contradict each other — notice period, split-holiday days, and travel-expense cover. If you approve the rule, I will answer this way without bringing them to you one by one, and I will give you the list of pairs every quarter. two-documents-one-question_three-ways.pdf1 question · 3 ways of doing it · 3 pairs of documents
⛓ Sourced · company agreement of 12/03/2019 art. 7.2, staff notice of 04/02/2024 point 3, the quarter's 1,240 questions
The rule, in one sentence: when two of your documents deal with the same question differently, the answer says first what applies today — the agreement — then quotes both texts with their articles and their dates, and the point goes to HR management the same day.
Why your correction matters more than it looks: an answer that sets out a contradiction without concluding sends the person back to their starting point, and they ask someone else. One concluding sentence at the top, and the question does not come back.
What it changes today: the answer has gone out — « one month, under article 7.2 of the agreement of 12/03/2019 » — both texts are attached, and the note on the 3 contradictory pairs is on HR management's desk. What is decided there is not mine to decide: an amendment is negotiated, a notice is withdrawn, and both are signed.
What lets you go back on it: the rule is entered in my answering rule under its name, with its date, the manager who approved it and the question that gave rise to it. You remove it with one line, and I go back to bringing you these questions one by one.
✎ Rule approved · answering rule, entry « two documents on one question », approved on 27/09 by the head of human resources
Your case is not here? That is exactly what a 30-minute conversation is for. Discuss your project →
The stages of your AI agent project
Audit & scoping
30 minutes to target the use case with the best return.
Quote or direct sign-up
A catalogue offer is bought online; a specific need gets a costed quote.
Design
We design the agent and its guardrails.
Integration & testing
We connect your tools to the agent, which is itself hosted in France.
Rollout
Going live and training your team.
Operation
Continuous supervision and improvement.
Why AI matters to HR — and why they hesitate
Staff expect immediate answers and a smooth onboarding, while HR teams, often small, face a growing volume of internal requests. But the data involved — pay, contracts, health, personal circumstances — is among the most sensitive in the business.
! The issue
The HR department is caught between staff who want answers right away, new arrivals to integrate quickly, and a load of repetitive requests that keeps growing (leave, payroll, procedures, certificates). Yet most consumer AI solutions amount to entrusting pay, contracts, health data and personal circumstances to a third party, often hosted outside Europe and subject to the Cloud Act.
✓ Our answer
AI is only of interest to HR if it is sovereign and confidential by design. Local inference or an isolated resource hosted in France, strict control of access rights, systematic human oversight, decisions reserved to the HR team: the time saved on the repetitive is never paid for in lost confidentiality. The aim is not to replace the HR team, but to give it back time for people.
The confidentiality of staff data: sovereignty & compliance
HR data is among the most sensitive in the business and is strictly governed by the GDPR. Here is how the architecture of our agents protects it.
Local inference
With the 100% Sovereign package, the agent runs on a machine at the business: no staff data leaves the network, nothing passes through a cloud.
Hosting in France
Otherwise, with the Agility and Serenity packages, a dedicated, isolated resource hosted in France, under French law: data hosted in France; the AI model is called at its publisher, except with the Sovereign model option.
Reduced extraterritorial exposure
Exposure of staff data to the Cloud Act and FISA 702 is reduced by design; location alone does not guarantee immunity.
Controlled access rights
Access rights are controlled: each person sees only what concerns them. Encryption in transit and at rest, logging.
One isolated resource per company
No pooling of HR data: an environment strictly dedicated to your organisation.
AI Act: governed deployment
The agent carries out what you have authorised; no HR decision is automated; traceability and human oversight from end to end.
What depends on the architecture chosen These points are not general guarantees: they are settled deployment by deployment, in the quotation.
- The applicable location is that of the architecture set out in the quotation and verified before commissioning.
- Local execution is announced only for the configuration explicitly described and accepted in the quotation.
- The applicable isolation depends on the deployment mode set out in the quotation; no dedicated isolation is presumed.
- The encryption mechanisms in transit and at rest, their components and key management are those documented for the architecture chosen.
- The events logged, their content, their retention period and who may access them are defined for the deployment chosen.
How much time can an HR department win back?
A large share of the requests an HR department receives are repetitive questions. By automating them, the agent gives time back to the HR team and speeds up the integration of new arrivals, who find their answers immediately.
Four guarantees that matter to an HR department
Your questions, our answers
Does the HR agent replace the HR team?
Can it check a vacancy’s required criteria?
Is staff data protected?
Does it integrate with my HR system?
Do we have to learn a new tool to use it?
Does it help onboard new arrivals?
How long does it take to deploy the HR agent?
Other use cases for your internal teams
Let us estimate the potential in your organisation
30 minutes to identify the most useful HR use case — hosted in France, supervised, with no commitment.