We are currently witnessing the biggest shift in AI. We are moving away from passive Chatbots (systems that answer a question and stop) toward active Agents (systems that are given a goal and actively work to achieve it).
The promise is incredible: "Go research competitor pricing and update our database."
The reality is often hilarious—or terrifying. You come back an hour later to find your agent has spent $50 in API credits reading the same "Terms of Service" page 400 times in a row. It got stuck in a loop, and it didn't have the cognition to stop.
To build production-grade agents, we have to stop treating them like search engines and start treating them like employees. Specifically, we need to manage them like a brilliant, but dangerously inexperienced, "Autonomous Intern."
The Metaphor: The Brilliant Intern with No Common Sense 🎓
Imagine you hire an intern with an IQ of 180. They have read the entire internet, they know every programming language, and they can recite history books verbatim.
You give them a task: "Find out why our server crashed last night."
The Human Approach: A human intern would check the logs, see a confusing error, Google it, realize the first three results are irrelevant, try a different search, find a plausible cause, and report back to you in 20 minutes.
The AI Agent Approach (Without Guardrails): The agent checks the logs. It sees a confusing error. It decides its next step is to "read the documentation for the error." It reads the docs. It decides its next step is to "check the logs again." It sees the same error. It decides to read the docs again.
The Result: An infinite loop of useless actions that burns through your budget until it hits a timeout or crashes.
Why does this happen? Because LLMs are "probabilistic engines". They are great at predicting the next likely step, but they are terrible at knowing when they are stuck. They lack the metacognition to say, "Wait, I've tried this three times and it's not working; I should try something completely different."
The "Performance Improvement Plan": 3 Ways to Manage Your Agent 📋
As a System Architect, you cannot just unleash this intern onto your infrastructure. You need to build a Supervisory Layer — a rigid "Performance Improvement Plan" that forces the agent to behave rationally.
Here are the three essential components of an agentic architecture:
1. The "Time Card" (Hard Step Limits & Loop Detection) ⏱️
Never, ever let an agent run open-ended. You must impose strict bureaucratic limits.
The Hard Cap: Implement a global counter. "You have exactly 15 'steps' (thoughts/actions) to solve this problem. If you hit step 16, the plug is pulled." This prevents runaway costs.
The Deja Vu Detector: Your orchestration layer needs to track the agent's actions. If the agent tries to call read_file("logs.txt") three times in a row with the exact same parameters, the system should intervene. You can either force the agent to choose a different tool or terminate the run with an error: "Loop Detected. Try a different strategy."
2. The "Scratchpad" (Durable State Management) 📝
The biggest reason interns get confused is that they forget what they just did. LLMs are stateless by default.
You need to provide the agent with a persistent "Scratchpad" — a structured memory (often stored in Redis or a simple JSON object passed back and forth) where it must record its progress.
Before taking any action, the agent must read its scratchpad:
Have I already tried this Google search? Yes. Okay, what did I learn? X, Y, and Z. Okay, based on that, what is the new plan?
By forcing the agent to externalize its thought process, you reduce the chance of it repeating mistakes.
3. The "Manager Sign-Off" (Supervisor LLMs or HITL) 🕵️♂️
The most dangerous thing an agent can do is "succeed".
An agent stuck in a dead end will often start hallucinating just to fulfill its programming to finish the task. It might invent a reason for the server crash just so it can say "Task Complete".
For high-stakes tasks, you cannot trust the worker agent to grade its own homework. You need a Supervisor Loop:
The Critic Model: Before the final answer is shown to the user, a second, highly prompted LLM reviews the work. "You are a Senior QA Engineer. Review the agent's findings. Does the evidence actually support the conclusion? If not, send it back for revision."
Human-in-the-Loop (HITL): For actions like "Delete Database" or "Send Email to CEO," the agent's final step should never be execution. It should be proposing the execution for a human manager to click "Approve."
Wrapping Up🎁: From Coding to Orchestration
Building with agents changes your role as an engineer. You are less concerned with writing the exact logic for how to solve a problem, and more concerned with designing the constraints and guardrails that allow an autonomous system to solve it safely.
Your job isn't to do the intern's work for them; it's to build the office environment that makes it impossible for them to accidentally burn down the building😅.
🤝 Let’s Connect!
I’m a Project Technical Lead exploring the messy reality of building autonomous systems and am available here:
Question for you: When building agents, do you prefer a "hard cap" on the number of iterations (e.g., max 10 steps), or do you rely on a second "Supervisor LLM" to decide when a task is actually totally finished? Let’s talk orchestration in the comments! 👇
Top comments (0)