People too focused on AI and what's popular are missing the forest for a tree. Most of the things I see being talked about as problems & solutions have already been taken care of with mature tooling choices and engineering practices. History and archeology are underrated skills in software.
What your hard fail is, that's at a different layer of control, separate from OP questions about just seeing it so you can design those control systems. That's more guards, validators, and the like (more subagents)
I stay more human in the loop because these things are not ready for prime time the way you describe using them. That's burning tokens on average imo.
In practice, when something does go wrong in a multi-step workflow, do you typically rely on tracing + manual debugging, or do you have built-in mechanisms for partial replay / recovery?
Curious how teams are handling this today — are those contracts usually defined explicitly (schemas / validators), or are they mostly implicit in the agent code and discovered only after failures?
I was wondering how well the standard o11y stack works once agents start running multi-step workflows (agent → tools → other agents → APIs). Tracing probably helps visualize the steps, but I'm curious how people handle operational things like retries, replaying failed workflows, or containing cascading failures across agents.
Those reliability aspects are what I've been exploring.