Everyone is selling AI agents, but almost nobody is selling the workflows to make them useful.

Reddit r/AI_Agents News

Summary

The article argues that while many are building and selling AI agents, the real value lies in the workflows and training that make them useful, not the underlying technology.

I’ve noticed a pattern lately. Everyone is building and selling AI agents. Founders buy them, test them for a weekend, and then completely abandon them. The reality is that an agent without a strict operational workflow is just a chatbot. The bottleneck isn't the underlying LLM anymore. The bottleneck is the workflow. If you want an agent to actually do a job—like a Creative Strategist—you have to spend months tuning prompts and edge cases. You have to map out exactly what a senior human would do and force the agent to respect those boundaries. We recently shifted our entire approach because of this. We stopped focusing on the code of the agent and started focusing entirely on pre-loading them with human-proven workflows. The difference in usability is massive. The value of an agent is almost entirely in the training and the workflow, not the underlying tech stack. Has anyone else noticed that building the agent is the easy part, but building the workflow is where everything breaks down?
Original Article

Similar Articles

Are we calling too many workflows “agents”?

Reddit r/AI_Agents

The author questions whether many so-called AI agents are better described as workflows, arguing that for repeatable browser tasks, defined workflows may be more reliable than agents that reinterpret steps each time.

Everyone builds AI workflows. Almost no one sticks with them. Here’s why.

Reddit r/AI_Agents

A founder shares his experience with AI tool adoption, noting that most people collect tools without achieving real results. He advocates focusing on one critical business problem and iterating until the workflow genuinely works, citing his own success reducing client reporting time from 4-5 hours to under 45 minutes.