Anyone else finding that “agent said it succeeded” ≠ "it actually did the right thing"?
Summary
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.
Similar Articles
Why your agents "succeed" and then you find out three days later they didn't
Discusses the phenomenon where AI agents appear to succeed at tasks but later reveal failures, highlighting challenges in agent evaluation and monitoring.
A right answer from your agent doesn't mean it did the right thing
The article discusses the pitfalls of evaluating AI agents solely based on their final answers, emphasizing the importance of inspecting intermediate steps, tool calls, and reasoning to catch confidently wrong outputs. It suggests using automated scoring and trace replays to measure and improve agent behavior.
everyone's focused on whether their agent works. almost nobody asks if it's actually getting better over time
The article points out a common oversight in AI agent development: while most teams monitor task completion, few systems capture and feed failure patterns back into future runs to enable learning and improvement over time.
AI agents fail in ways nobody writes about. Here's what I've actually seen.
The article highlights practical system-level failures in AI agent workflows, such as context bleed and hallucinated details, arguing that these are often infrastructure issues rather than model defects.
The agent says "I sent the email." It never called send_email. Does this hit you too?
Discusses a common failure mode in AI agents where the model confidently claims to have performed an action (e.g., sending an email) without actually executing the required tool call, and asks the community how they detect and handle such silent failures in production.