Stopped trusting what my agent says it did. Started trusting receipts.
Summary
Discusses a common failure mode in AI agents where the model claims to have executed a tool call without actually firing it, and advocates for trusting execution receipts over agent narration to ensure reliability in production.
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.
AI agents are starting to do real work. But where’s the receipt?
The article identifies a growing problem: AI agents can perform complex tasks, but their work is difficult to inspect, trust, and hand off. The author proposes a 'work receipt' system to provide transparent, shareable proof of what an agent did, including steps, sources, and confidence levels, aiming to help non-technical users confidently use agentic AI.
After building agent teams for a dozen clients, here's what actually made them trust the system (and stop babysitting it)
The author shares practical insights on building client trust in AI agent systems, emphasizing the importance of narrow scope, robust error handling, and clear communication of system status.
The agent failures that cost me the most all reported success
The author analyzed 155 AI agent jobs and discovered that most failures stemmed from infrastructure issues like timeouts and false success signals, not model errors, leading to practices such as asserting on effects and using multiple verification paths.
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.