Back to writings
AI

Building Production AI Agents: Lessons from the Trenches

Maisum Hashim10 min read
“The gap between working agents and production agents isn't capability—it's architecture, governance, and the willingness to redesign workflows instead of bolting agents onto legacy systems.”

Everyone's building AI agents. Most aren't shipping them.

I've deployed agents that run in production every single day—marketing analytics agents, document processing agents, workflow automation agents. I've also watched dozens fail in spectacular ways. The difference isn't the LLM. It's the architecture, the operational patterns, and how ruthlessly you enforce boundaries.

While nearly two-thirds of organizations are experimenting with AI agents, fewer than one in four have successfully scaled them to production. That gap is real, and it's not because the models aren't good enough.

Here's what I've learned about building agents that actually work at scale.

The Core Problem: Demos Aren't Systems

A demo agent is simple: you give it a goal, it uses some tools, it returns a result. Done.

A production agent is different. It needs to:

  • Handle failures gracefully without cascading breakdowns
  • Operate within defined boundaries (no infinite loops, no unauthorized actions)
  • Maintain auditability—you need to know exactly what it did and why
  • Integrate with existing systems without breaking them
  • Scale without requiring manual intervention

The key differentiator isn't the sophistication of the AI models. It's the willingness to redesign workflows rather than simply layering agents onto legacy processes.

Most projects fail because they treat agents as productivity add-ons. They slap an LLM wrapper on existing workflows and hope for the best. That doesn't work.

Pattern 1: Bounded Autonomy Over Full Autonomy

The most dangerous assumption is that more autonomy equals better performance. It doesn't.

Most organizations will deploy agentic AI with clear limits, using checkpoints, escalation paths, and human oversight to balance efficiency with control.

Here's what I've implemented successfully:

  1. Clear decision boundaries — Define exactly what the agent can and cannot do. Not "handle customer requests"—"respond to billing inquiries under $500 with pre-approved templates."

  2. Escalation thresholds — When uncertainty exceeds a threshold, escalate. When impact crosses a line, escalate. This isn't a limitation; it's a feature that keeps the system reliable.

  3. Audit trails — Every action gets logged with context. Why did the agent make this choice? What was the confidence level? What data did it use? This matters for debugging and governance.

  4. Checkpoints — For critical workflows, build in approval gates. The agent proposes; a human validates; the agent executes. This is slower than full autonomy, but it's also faster and more reliable than pure manual work.

I've seen this pattern reduce production incidents by 80% compared to "fully autonomous" agents. The agents still do 90% of the work. Humans handle the 10% that matters most.

Pattern 2: Structured Output Over Free-Form Text

This is non-negotiable. Never parse free-form LLM output in production.

The moment you rely on the LLM to generate unstructured text that your system then tries to interpret, you've introduced brittleness. The LLM will eventually hallucinate. Your system will break.

Force structured output using schemas. If you're using Claude, use tool use with defined parameters. If you're building custom systems, use JSON schemas with strict validation.

const agentAction = z.object({
  action: z.enum(["approve", "reject", "escalate"]),
  confidence: z.number().min(0).max(1),
  reasoning: z.string().max(500),
  nextSteps: z.array(z.string()).optional(),
  requiresApproval: z.boolean(),
});

This forces the LLM to commit to a specific decision structure. You know exactly what you're getting. You can validate it. You can handle edge cases predictably.

Pattern 3: Workflow Ownership, Not Task Execution

One of the most practical agentic AI trends for 2026 is the move from single-step automation to systems that manage entire workflows. Instead of completing one task and stopping, agentic systems maintain context, monitor progress, and decide what to do next.

This is the shift from agents to agent systems.

Instead of: "Process this document" → done.

Think: "Manage the entire document processing workflow—validate format, extract data, cross-reference systems, flag exceptions, notify stakeholders, track completion."

The agent owns the workflow. It maintains state across multiple steps. It knows what happened before and what needs to happen next. It can recover from failures without restarting from scratch.

This requires:

  • Persistent state management — The agent needs to remember context across invocations
  • Progress tracking — You need visibility into where the workflow is and what's happening
  • Error recovery — Define what happens when a step fails. Does the agent retry? Escalate? Skip?
  • Completion criteria — How does the agent know when the workflow is done?

In practice, this looks like a state machine where the agent is one component—not the whole system. The agent makes decisions and executes actions. The system tracks progress and enforces the workflow.

Pattern 4: Integration First, Capability Second

The data points to three primary challenges: integration with existing systems (46%), data access and quality (42%), and change management needs (39%).

This is the real bottleneck. Not the LLM. Not the agent logic. Integration.

Your agent is only as useful as the systems it can access and modify. If it can't read your database, write to your CRM, or trigger your workflows, it's decorative.

I've learned to build agents around integration constraints, not around ideal capability:

  1. Map the integration landscape first — What systems does this workflow actually touch? What APIs exist? What data is accessible? What's locked behind authentication?

  2. Start with what's accessible — Don't wait for the perfect integration. Start with what you can reasonably connect today. Build from there.

  3. Design for API limitations — Real APIs are rate-limited, sometimes flaky, and often poorly documented. Build agents that handle this gracefully. Retry logic. Fallbacks. Degraded modes.

  4. Make data flow visible — Track what data the agent is reading and writing. This is critical for debugging and governance. You need to know what the agent touched and when.

I've seen teams spend months building sophisticated agent logic that fails immediately because they can't actually access the data they need. Start with integration. Build capability on top.

Pattern 5: Monitoring and Observability Are Not Optional

You can't operate an agent in production without visibility.

Here's what I monitor:

  • Decision confidence — Is the agent making high-confidence decisions or guessing?
  • Action outcomes — When the agent takes an action, did it succeed? What was the result?
  • Escalation rate — How often is the agent escalating? If it's under 1%, you might have a boundary problem. If it's over 20%, the agent isn't adding value.
  • Latency — How long is each decision taking? Are you hitting timeout issues?
  • Error patterns — What kinds of requests cause the agent to fail? Can you fix those proactively?
  • Cost — How much are you spending per decision? Per workflow? This matters for ROI.

Without this visibility, you're flying blind. You won't know if the agent is actually working until it breaks something important.

I use structured logging with context. Every agent action gets logged with:

{
  timestamp: ISO string,
  workflowId: string,
  agentDecision: object,
  confidence: number,
  tokensUsed: number,
  latency: number,
  outcome: "success" | "failure" | "escalated",
  context: object
}

This data is invaluable for debugging, optimization, and governance.

Pattern 6: Governance and Auditability From Day One

As adoption increases, governance and auditability are becoming deciding factors in whether agentic AI moves from pilot to production.

If your agent is making decisions that affect customers, operations, or compliance, you need to be able to explain every decision.

Build governance into the architecture from the start:

  1. Decision logging — Every decision the agent makes gets logged with reasoning, confidence, and context

  2. Policy enforcement — Define policies that the agent must follow. If a decision violates policy, escalate or block it

  3. Audit trails — You need a complete record of what the agent did, when it did it, and why

  4. Rollback capability — If the agent makes a bad decision, can you undo it? For critical workflows, this is essential

This isn't overhead. It's how you operate safely at scale.

The Real Failure Mode: Scaling Too Fast

Three out of four firms (75%) that attempt to build aspirational agentic architectures on their own will fail. The systems are simply too convoluted, requiring diverse and multiple models, sophisticated retrieval-augmented generation stacks, advanced data architectures, and niche expertise.

I see teams try to do too much too fast. They build a working prototype. It looks good. They want to scale it to 10 workflows. Then 50. Then 200.

Each new workflow adds complexity. Each new data source adds integration challenges. Each new system interaction adds failure modes.

The pattern that works:

  1. Pick one high-value workflow — Something that matters, but not something mission-critical

  2. Get it to production and stable — Real production, real data, real monitoring. Not a pilot. Not a demo.

  3. Measure actual ROI — Not potential ROI. Actual. How much time is the agent saving? How many errors is it preventing? How much is it costing?

  4. Learn from that one workflow — What broke? What surprised you? What would you do differently?

  5. Then scale — Apply those lessons to the next workflow

This is slower than the "build everything at once" approach. But it's much more likely to succeed.

What I'd Do Differently

If I were starting over today, I'd focus on three things:

1. Spend more time on workflow design — Before you write a single line of agent code, map the workflow. Where are the decision points? Where does it need human input? What are the failure modes? Design the workflow for agent execution, not human execution.

2. Start with smaller models — Smaller and more specialized models are often better suited to specific tasks. You don't need Claude or GPT-4 for every agent. Smaller, faster, cheaper models work better for many tasks. Start there.

3. Build for multi-agent systems from the beginning — Gartner reported a staggering 1,445% surge in multi-agent system inquiries from Q1 2024 to Q2 2025, signaling a shift in how systems are designed. Single monolithic agents don't scale. Design for multiple specialized agents coordinating around a workflow. Check out Multi-Agent Systems: When One LLM Isn't Enough for a deeper look at this pattern.

The Takeaway

Production AI agents are not harder to build than demos. They're just different. The LLM part is actually the easy part. The hard part is architecture, integration, governance, and operational discipline.

Deploy agentic AI that executes reliably, operates within defined boundaries, and keeps humans accountable for critical decisions. Success means fewer handoffs, faster workflows, measurable productivity gains, and predictable risk management.

If you want to build agents that actually work in production, start with these patterns. Start small. Measure everything. Scale deliberately.

For a deeper dive into agent architecture and design patterns, check out The Complete Guide to Building AI Agents: From Concept to Production, Why Most AI Projects Fail (And How to Fix It), and The Rise of Agentic AI: From Chatbots to Autonomous Systems.

And if you're ready to talk about building agents for your specific workflow, get in touch. I'm always interested in production problems.