What would convince you an agent actually fixed the issue?
Summary
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.
Similar Articles
How do you actually know your AI agent did what it says it did?
The article discusses the challenge of verifying AI agent actions and advocates for immutable receipts to ensure trust and distinguish between bad decisions and non-existent ones.
The agent gets rescued. Where does the fix go?
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.
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.
what do u actually check when every span is green but the agent still did the wrong thing?
A user discusses strategies to debug AI agent systems in production where all indicators show success but outcomes are incorrect, seeking community advice on evidence and methods for diagnosis.
Anyone else finding that “agent said it succeeded” ≠ "it actually did the right thing"?
A practitioner asks about real-world experiences with AI agents reporting success while business outcomes are wrong, seeking operational feedback on manual checks and failure costs.