the one rule that makes a quoting agent trustworthy: the LLM never touches the number
Summary
A practitioner shares the architecture for trustworthy quoting agents: the LLM only extracts specs from messy customer messages at temperature 0, nulls become follow-up questions, pricing is done by a deterministic code engine with regression tests, and a human approves every quote before it goes out.
Similar Articles
Your LLM shouldn’t be your coding-agent workflow
Argues that LLMs should be used for reasoning within coding-agent workflows, while deterministic infrastructure handles queues, state, retries, and recovery, so the process doesn't break when usage limits hit.
Beyond Agent Architecture: Execution Assumptions and Reproducibility in LLM-Based Trading Systems
This paper reviews and audits execution realism in LLM-based trading research, proposing clearer reporting standards for reproducibility and evaluation comparability.
The most reliable data agent I've shipped is ~90% deterministic code. The LLM just parses intent and talks. Change my mind.
The author argues that the reliability of AI agents comes from deterministic code, not the LLM, and shares five key practices for building trustworthy agents on messy real-world data.
Faithful uncertainty in LLM agents: calibration vs utility tradeoff in practice[D]
A practitioner discusses the calibration vs. utility tradeoff in LLM agents, sharing experience with a verifier-based pipeline that reduces hallucinated tool calls by ~60% but introduces latency costs and drops easy correct answers.
Agentic Trading: When LLM Agents Meet Financial Markets
This paper presents a systematic survey and evidence map of 77 studies on LLM-based trading agents, finding that architectural experimentation is expanding rapidly but evaluation protocols, execution semantics, and reproducibility remain critical bottlenecks.