Why Another Agent?
The current landscape of AI assistants is crowded. We can talk to ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, or Perplexity and get instant answers. But most of these interactions are ephemeral. Each prompt is a bubble: a question tossed into the void, an answer drifting back, and then—silence. Nothing persists. Nothing acts.
The difference between a chatbot and an agent lies in continuity and execution. Agents remember, connect, and do things. They don’t just advise you—they schedule the meeting, send the email, and follow up tomorrow.
That’s the gap I set out to close when I built Nexus, my personal agent inside n8n (a visual orchestration engine originally designed for IT and DevOps). The experiment taught me much more than just how to wire APIs together. It showed me what’s missing in today’s “AI agent” hype, and what really matters if you want something that feels alive and useful.
1. Templates Are Tempting—But Don’t Start There
When you first open n8n, you’re flooded with ready-made templates. Thousands of workflows: email parsers, lead trackers, HR automations. It’s seductive. Why build when you can copy?
But starting from a template is like buying a fully furnished apartment before you know whether you prefer to cook in the kitchen or eat out every night. Templates shortcut the what but obscure the why.
I forced myself to start with a blank canvas: one trigger node, one agent node, nothing else. This wasn’t masochism—it was pedagogy. By constructing Nexus piece by piece, I learned three things templates would have hidden from me:
- Every workflow must start somewhere. Without an explicit trigger, nothing happens. In practice, that means every “agent” has to be summoned into existence. Designing those entry points (Telegram messages, email arrivals, scheduled checks) defines your agent’s personality more than any system prompt ever will.
- Flow is directional. In n8n, data moves left to right. That constraint shapes your thinking. Do you want memory before the model call, or after? Should a Gmail search feed into the agent, or should the agent decide when to query Gmail? These are architectural choices, not cosmetic ones.
- Agents without memory are amnesiacs. My first tests produced witty answers, but Nexus couldn’t remember what we’d said two seconds ago. The illusion of intelligence collapsed instantly. Memory wasn’t optional—it was the spine of the design.
2. Memory Isn’t Just Storage—it’s Personality
Adding memory to Nexus felt deceptively simple: attach a session ID, set the window length, and suddenly the agent could recall the last 15 messages. Problem solved, right?
Not quite. What I realized is that the way you implement memory dictates the type of agent you get.
A short rolling window gives you a goldfish: responsive but shallow.
A PostgreSQL-backed store (like Supabase) turns your agent into a librarian: reliable, systematic, but maybe slow.
A vector database (Pinecone, for example) creates a detective: associative, good at finding thematic relevance, sometimes at the cost of precision.
Hybrid systems—graph + relational + embeddings—hint at something closer to identity: an agent that not only remembers facts but also relationships.
When I hooked Nexus into Telegram, I had to map chat IDs to session IDs. That little decision—tying memory to a social channel rather than a global user profile—meant Nexus became a companion for conversations, not a cross-platform personal archive. A subtle design choice, but one that made it feel more human.
The lesson: memory isn’t a feature; it’s the worldview of your agent.
3. System Prompts Are Overrated—Context Is King
The AI world obsesses over “perfect prompts.” Whole ecosystems of prompt marketplaces and “best practices” guides have emerged. But after building Nexus, I’m convinced most of this is cargo cult.
Yes, system prompts matter. I experimented with Gemini to draft a polished one: professional yet fun, minimal examples, no tool descriptions. That gave Nexus a baseline tone. But the real breakthroughs came elsewhere:
Injecting the current date and time prevented the agent from living in 2023 forever. Obvious, but overlooked.
Telling the agent its time zone stopped it from scheduling phantom events.
Embedding contextual fields dynamically (e.g., chat input, message IDs) let prompts adapt on the fly.
It wasn’t poetic wording that made Nexus useful. It was structured context, reliably passed along the pipeline.
If prompts are personality, context is oxygen. Without oxygen, even the best personality suffocates.
4. Tools Are Where Hype Meets Reality
Hooking Nexus to Gmail, Google Calendar, and Perplexity felt like giving it superpowers. Suddenly, I could say:
“Check my availability for tomorrow.”
“Summarize unread emails.”
“Research top AI trends.”
And it worked. Mostly.
But here’s the catch: tools don’t just add capability—they add cognitive load. Each new tool is an instruction chunk appended to the agent’s context. Stack enough of them, and your model starts forgetting which tool to use.
The practical ceiling I found was around 20 tools. Beyond that, confusion creeps in. The solution? Modular agents.
I built a separate LinkedIn Post Generator agent and then exposed it to Nexus as a single tool. It was a clean separation: one conversational agent orchestrating specialized sub-agents. Suddenly the system scaled without drowning in instructions.
That’s the real architecture of agents: not a Swiss Army knife with 50 blades, but a conductor leading an orchestra of specialists.
5. The Hidden Art of Latency Management
People rarely talk about latency when designing agents. Yet it defines user experience more than accuracy.
When Nexus called Perplexity, the wait was noticeable. The fix wasn’t faster hardware—it was intermediary communication. I added a step where Nexus would message me:
“I’ll research that—it might take a moment.”
That single tweak transformed frustration into patience. It reminded me of an old UX truth: users don’t hate waiting; they hate not knowing why they’re waiting.
Agents that acknowledge their own delays feel alive. Agents that stay silent feel broken.
6. The Business End of “Personal” Agents
Once Nexus could check my calendar, read my email, and create tasks, I realized something uncomfortable: I was outsourcing executive function.
If Nexus mis-parsed a time zone, I’d miss a meeting.
If Nexus emailed the wrong summary, I’d look careless.
If Nexus stored too much memory, sensitive information might linger.
Building a personal agent isn’t just technical plumbing—it’s trust engineering. Every design choice has implications:
Credential management: Cloud-hosted vs. self-hosted determines whether you’re trading convenience for control.
Attribution removal: Even a small “message sent via n8n” tag breaks the illusion of personal agency.
Debug visibility: Being able to inspect executions gave me confidence. Without it, I’d never delegate real tasks.
The deeper I built, the more I realized: personal agents aren’t toys. They’re fiduciaries. Treat them with the same scrutiny you’d give a financial advisor.
Agents as Mirrors
By the end of this build, Nexus wasn’t just a bot in my Telegram feed. It was a mirror of my priorities. It remembered what I valued enough to repeat. It ignored what I forgot to encode. It acted confidently where I gave it tools, and sat silent where I withheld them.
The lesson is simple but profound: your agent is only as intelligent as the scaffolding you provide.
If you rely on templates, it will inherit someone else’s assumptions.
If you neglect memory, it will be a stranger every morning.
If you overload it with tools, it will flounder in choice.
If you respect latency, context, and trust, it will feel like a collaborator.
In that sense, building Nexus wasn’t just an engineering exercise. It was a philosophy experiment disguised as a workflow diagram.
The future of agents won’t be defined by the raw horsepower of large language models. It will be defined by how we design their flows, memories, contexts, and responsibilities.
Because in the end, an agent is not just something that thinks—it’s something that acts. And once it acts on your behalf, it stops being hypothetical. It becomes a reflection of you.
Top comments (0)