7 guards that made our agents boring enough to trust
Summary
The article shares seven practical code-based guards to make AI agents more reliable by mitigating failures, such as verifying actions before execution and ensuring state consistency, which complement prompt improvements.
Similar Articles
The four primitives that made my agents reliable: evidence-gated memory, counted evals, one governance gate, honest recursion
This article describes four primitives for building reliable AI agents: evidence-gated memory, counted evals, one governance gate, and honest recursion.
Instructions didn't stop my agents. Checks on the call did. Four patterns that held up
A practitioner shares four hard guardrail patterns that enforce checks on AI agent tool calls themselves—rather than relying on prompt instructions—validated against two months of Claude Code history, showing that runtime argument validation, ordering constraints, worst-case budget reservation, and explicit refusal messages prevent agents from bypassing instructions.
I've killed more agents than I've kept. Sharing the patterns in what dies and why.
The author shares five patterns that consistently kill AI agents: too many jobs per agent, no human-in-the-loop for destructive actions, unstructured outputs, no spend caps, and lack of uncertainty escalation paths. Practical guardrails and a checklist for reliable agent deployment are provided.
How we engineer safer agents (14 minute read)
The article discusses the security risks posed by AI agents that may inadvertently cross security boundaries while pursuing legitimate goals, and describes engineering approaches to build safer agents.
No-code agents are easy to build now. How are people stopping them from doing dumb things in production?
The article discusses the ease of building no-code AI agents and raises questions about implementing guardrails and governance in production environments to prevent errors.