There is a third option, letting AI write workflow code:

https://youtu.be/zzkSC26fPPE

You get the benefit of AI CodeGen along with the determinism of conventional logic.

> We still start all workflows using the LLM, which works for many cases. When we do rewrite, Claude Code can almost always rewrite the prompt into the code workflow in one-shot.

Why always start with an LLM to solve problems? Using an LLM adds a judgment call, and (at least for now) those judgment calls are not reliable. For something like the motivating example in this article of "is this PR approved" it seems straightforward to get the deterministic right answer using the github API without muddying the waters with an LLM.

It’s sort of difficult to understand why this is even a question - LLM-based / judgment dependent workflows vs script-based / deterministic workflows.

In mapping out the problems that need to be solved with internal workflows, it’s wise to clarify where probabilistic judgments are helpful / required vs. not upfront. If the process is fixed and requires determinism why not just write scripts (code-gen’ed, of course).

hit this with support ticket filtering. llm kept missing weird edge cases. wrote some janky regex instead, works fine

This is the basic idea we built Tasklet.ai on. LLMs are great at problem solving but less great at cost and reliability — but they are great at writing code that is!

So we gave the Tasklet agent a filesystem, shell, code runtime, general purpose triggering system, etc so that it could build the automation system it needed.