Skip to main content

Understanding Workflows

Workflows are structured definitions of how agents should accomplish work. They're state machines that control agent behavior by defining what's possible at each stage of a task.

The Problem Workflows Solve

Give an AI agent access to all your tools at all times, and you have a security nightmare. Lock it down to rigid scripts, and it can't handle unexpected situations. Workflows solve this by providing structure that enables intelligence rather than constraining it.

Core Components

States are discrete operational contexts. Each state defines what the agent should be accomplishing, which tools are available, and what transitions are possible. An agent in a "read code" state might only access git and parsing tools. In a "write review" state, commenting and issue-creation tools become available.

Transitions control movement between states. They include source and target states, conditions that must be met, and actions performed during transition. Transitions can be triggered by simple events or complex reasoning by the agent.

Guards are validation rules checked before transitions. They provide an additional safety layer, ensuring state changes only happen when appropriate. Guards can check agent state, external conditions, user permissions, or any relevant factors.

Tools are dynamically provisioned based on current state. System tools (like memory storage) are always available. Pathway tools are provided contextually—only when the workflow state makes them appropriate.

Why State Machines for AI?

Traditional state machines have deterministic transitions. Lovelace extends this for AI by allowing transitions triggered by agent reasoning while maintaining the predictability state machines provide.

This means you get:

  • Finite state spaces that can be systematically tested
  • Clear progression through work that can be monitored
  • Security boundaries that are enforced structurally
  • Error containment since failures in one state don't cascade everywhere

The Context Management Problem

Before understanding why Pathways exists, consider what happens when you give an AI agent unlimited access to tools and ask it to accomplish a complex task.

Scenario 1: The Overwhelmed Code Reviewer

You deploy an agent to review pull requests. It has access to git operations, GitHub APIs, testing frameworks, deployment tools, and documentation systems. A simple PR comes in—someone fixed a typo in a comment.

The agent starts by cloning the repository. Then it notices the test suite and decides to run all tests. While tests run, it scans for related documentation and finds outdated API docs. It starts updating those docs. Mid-update, it notices the CI/CD configuration could be improved and begins refactoring it. Eventually, it posts a 3,000-word review covering everything except the actual typo fix.

What went wrong? The agent lost focus. With access to everything, it couldn't distinguish between what's relevant now versus what's possible to do. LLMs excel at finding connections between concepts, but this strength becomes a weakness when every connection triggers action.

Scenario 2: The Security Incident

An agent monitors production deployments with rollback capabilities. During a routine deployment, it detects slightly elevated error rates—normal for a new version warming up. But it also has access to database migration tools, configuration management, and user notification systems.

It decides to "investigate thoroughly." It starts examining database query patterns. While doing this, it notices an old migration that could be "optimized" and runs it in production. The migration locks a critical table. Now the error rate spikes for real. The agent, seeing worse metrics, attempts multiple rollbacks simultaneously, creating inconsistent state across services.

What went wrong? No boundaries on authority. The agent had read-only investigation needs but write access to production systems. When its context shifted from "monitor" to "investigate" to "fix," nothing prevented it from taking increasingly destructive actions.

Scenario 3: The Context Amnesia

An agent helps plan a product launch. It maintains conversations with multiple stakeholders, tracks requirements, coordinates with design and engineering teams, and manages timelines. The conversation history grows: 50 messages, 100 messages, 500 messages.

Then someone asks a simple question: "What did we decide about the beta timeline?" The agent's response contradicts a decision made 200 messages ago. It forgot. Not because it's poorly designed, but because its context window filled up. The information still exists in storage somewhere, but the agent lost track of what's actively important versus what's historical background.

What went wrong? Context window limitations. LLMs have finite attention spans. As conversations grow, older information either gets summarized (losing nuance) or falls out of context entirely (losing access). The agent can't distinguish between "I need this information loaded right now" versus "this is background I might need later."

Why Traditional Solutions Don't Work

You might think: "Just be more careful about what tools the agent can access." But this creates different problems.

Over-restriction kills intelligence. If the code review agent can only comment on files, it can't run tests to verify claims. If the deployment agent can only read metrics, it can't actually fix problems when they occur.

Hard-coded rules don't adapt. You could write: "only rollback if error rate exceeds 5%." But what if that threshold is wrong for this particular service? What if the right action depends on time of day, user impact patterns, or whether this is a gradual rollout versus full deployment?

Prompt engineering isn't enough. You can instruct the agent to "stay focused" or "only use relevant tools," but these are suggestions, not enforcement. When the model sees 50 available tools and finds creative connections between them, instructions become guidelines that intelligent systems work around.

How Pathways Solves This

Pathways addresses these problems through structured context—not by limiting what the agent can think about, but by limiting what it can act on based on where it is in the workflow.

The code review agent: Starts in a "read-only analysis" state with access only to git read operations and file parsing tools. After completing analysis, it transitions to "comment composition" state where GitHub API write access becomes available. It can't access deployment or modification tools because those states are never part of this workflow.

The deployment agent: Operates in distinct states: "monitoring" (read-only metrics), "investigating" (read-only logs and traces), "rolling back" (limited write to deployment systems), and "emergency rollback" (broader write access, requiring additional conditions). The agent can't accidentally run database migrations while monitoring because migration tools aren't available in that state.

The launch planning agent: Uses memory tools strategically through workflow states. In "requirements gathering," short-term memory tracks the active conversation. When transitioning to "decision documentation," the agent summarizes key decisions into long-term structured storage. In "progress tracking," only decision summaries and current tasks occupy context—not the entire conversation history. The agent doesn't forget decisions because they're explicitly moved to appropriate storage during state transitions.

Pathways doesn't make agents less intelligent—it channels intelligence effectively. The agent still reasons, adapts, and handles unexpected situations. But it does so within boundaries that ensure focus, security, and context management.

Pathways: The Advanced System

Lovelace's workflow engine is called Pathways. It implements several principles that make it particularly suited for AI agents:

State-Driven Design - Everything operates through explicit state management, making behavior predictable.

Constraint-Based Autonomy - Agents have freedom within well-defined boundaries, like a skilled contractor working within a project scope.

Dynamic Tool Orchestration - Tool availability determined by context ensures agents always have what they need without inappropriate access.

Observable Behavior - Comprehensive logging of states, transitions, and decisions enables effective monitoring and debugging.

Common Workflow Patterns

Linear workflows progress sequentially through states—good for simple, predictable processes.

Branching workflows take different paths based on conditions—useful when different inputs require different handling.

Hierarchical workflows contain sub-workflows within states—helps organize complex processes into manageable pieces.

Parallel workflows allow multiple states to be active simultaneously—enables concurrent processing of independent concerns.

Loop workflows can revisit states—necessary for iterative refinement processes.

Error Handling

Workflows provide structured failure management. Instead of errors propagating unpredictably, dedicated error states handle failures appropriately. Retry logic, rollback mechanisms, and escalation procedures are built into the workflow structure.

This means failures are containable, recoverable, and don't bring down entire systems.

The Meta-Level Understanding

Workflows aren't about limiting what agents can do—they're about making AI automation production-ready. By providing structure, workflows enable:

  • Compositional design where complex systems are built from simpler, tested components
  • Team collaboration where different people can work on different workflow states
  • Continuous improvement where workflows evolve based on real-world usage
  • Formal verification where you can prove certain properties about system behavior

The result is AI that's intelligent enough to handle complexity but structured enough to be reliable.

Related Concepts