The agent gets rescued. Where does the fix go?
Summary
The article discusses how to incorporate manual fixes for AI agents into future improvements using a structured process, exemplified by Reef's harness tutorial, which involves recording corrections, testing changes, and publishing versions.
Similar Articles
What would convince you an agent actually fixed the issue?
The article discusses what criteria should verify an AI agent's fix of infrastructure issues, using Skyportal's agent with acceptance conditions and checks as an example.
Your AI agent isn't broken. Your harness is. Here's the system that took mine from "liability" to shipping production code.
The article argues that AI coding agent failures stem from poor system design rather than model limitations, outlining a three-layer 'harness' of knowledge, guardrails, and feedback loops to reliably ship production code.
My agent fixed what its reviewer flagged. The next review passed the bug the fix created.
An AI agent used sub-agents to review and fix issues in generated slides, but the fixes introduced new bugs that reviewers failed to catch, resulting in a flawed final product.
My agent kept losing track of itself between sessions, so I rebuilt the harness instead of switching models
The author found that AI agent reliability issues were caused by the harness rather than the model, and improved it by separating context tracking, loading, and output checking, while working on versioning to manage code across projects.
how to fix ai agent reliability?
Discusses the challenge of moving AI agents from sandbox to production, highlighting high sensitivity causing noise, and proposes solutions like secondary evaluators, heuristics, and cascading architectures. Asks the community about their approaches to filtering.