When Should an AI Workflow Own a Decision Versus Prepare One?
A 32-case comparison shows when an AI workflow should prepare evidence, recommend an action, require approval, or execute within policy.
Topic collection
Choose between workflows, retrieval, models, tools, memory, and agents.
A 32-case comparison shows when an AI workflow should prepare evidence, recommend an action, require approval, or execute within policy.
A 12-fixture change-set benchmark compares fixed workflows, single agents, and orchestration on regression, repair effort, latency, cost, and traces.
Use this six-decision matrix to explain an AI workflow's boundaries, trade-offs, owners, consequences, and verification evidence.
A provider-neutral action contract and failure matrix for deciding what an AI workflow may run, stage, approve, compensate, or block.
Architecture skill means defining the job, choosing workflow or agent, bounding authority, and testing the result with evidence.
Use a custom API for one embedded client. Extract MCP when independent model clients or a reusable platform create real reuse, with security vetoes.
A reproducible route benchmark on synthetic business questions shows where SQL, RAG, and a hybrid router each answer, cite, or abstain.
A six-task deterministic audit shows when one LLM call is enough, when a second owns a real contract, and what a model run must measure.
A worked matrix for deciding which AI workflow checks belong in deterministic code, model judgment, or a human decision gate.
A matched 40-job experiment shows when sync is cheaper and when async earns its queue, status, retry, and recovery complexity.
A bounded audit of seven gateway-latency claims explains what direct comparisons can prove, what mock tests hide, and how to run the next test.
A five-task deterministic audit shows when orthogonal tools stay harmless, when overlapping schemas create ambiguity, and how to test a real agent honestly.
A six-control matrix for deciding what belongs in model instructions, deterministic application logic, or a shared policy service.
A bounded fixture compares how much decision context human reviewers need across final-only, decision-summary, and expandable-trace surfaces.
A reproducible eight-case fixture shows how to preserve source authority, expose conflicts, and abstain when mixed-source evidence cannot establish current state.
A fixed ten-case replay shows how to test automatic routing against explicit rules and one capable path before adding another architecture layer.
A trace-backed routing matrix for choosing query-first, model-first, or fixed-route AI workflows when structured data is involved.
Use retrieval for approved knowledge, tools for live state, and both when one answer must join policy evidence to a current system result.
A 20-case harness compares embedded policy logic with a versioned policy layer across thresholds, exceptions, permissions, and approvals.
Use a workflow runtime, not the model, to own facts, writes, retries, approvals, and recovery. This matrix and fixture make the boundary testable.
Use a workflow scorecard to choose a local LLM, an API, or a hybrid pilot based on data boundaries, workload shape, quality, and ownership.
Design AI features that lose capability safely when models, data, or tools fail, with fallbacks, stop conditions, honest UX, and tests.
Choose structured outputs for typed model responses, function calling for executable capabilities, and both when a workflow crosses both boundaries.
Make an AI agent ask useful clarifying questions by defining a typed pause, blocking tools until the answer arrives, and testing when to proceed.
Build an AI agent design document around the job, boundaries, behavior, evidence, ownership, and release conditions before implementation.
A practical MCP server security guide covering OAuth audience checks, tool scope, sandboxing, prompt injection, SSRF, supply chain, and audit controls.
Design an AI agent state machine with explicit state, guarded transitions, safe side effects, persistence, recovery paths, and tests you can run before production.
A practical control plan for stopping malicious or stale content from becoming persistent AI-agent memory and shaping later tasks.
Choose RAG for grounded answers, a fixed workflow for known steps, and an agent only when evidence must change the next search or action.
Design multi-agent handoffs as bounded contracts for context, artifacts, authority, verification, and failure instead of passing loose transcripts between prompts.
A vendor-neutral schema for scoped AI-agent memory records, with promotion, retrieval, validation, expiry, and deletion rules.
Start with one AI agent when one coherent context can solve the task. Split only for real parallel work, hard permission boundaries, or measured limits.
A practical boundary for deciding what an AI agent should remember, recompute, reference, or forget between tasks.
Use five hard gates to decide whether a workflow needs an AI agent, a fixed LLM workflow, or ordinary automation before you spend money or grant access.