n our experience, most agent failures weren’t model issues but intent drift. The agent starts with a narrow goal, then gradually “helpfully” expands scope because nothing re-asserts intent between steps.
What worked for us was making intent explicit per step and treating it as a constraint, not just context. Each step declares what it’s allowed to do, which tools it can touch, and what kind of output is valid. After the step finishes, that authority is torn down.
The system feels less flexible, but far more predictable. Fewer clever shortcuts, fewer surprises.
That’s essentially how GTWY approaches agent workflows, and it’s been a practical way to keep agents aligned without relying on heavier prompts or post-hoc validation.
moonshotideas•33m ago
I think you did an amazing job of converting this into something that people can easily understand and use within their codebase - so props on that. It however would be the the right thing to give the proper credit to the source of idea - at least to thank them for their work and effort given this more of less is a direct copy of what they published https://www.intent-systems.com/ (not me and it’s something I use as well, but proper thing to do is give credit where credit is due)
Agent_Builder•2h ago
What worked for us was making intent explicit per step and treating it as a constraint, not just context. Each step declares what it’s allowed to do, which tools it can touch, and what kind of output is valid. After the step finishes, that authority is torn down.
The system feels less flexible, but far more predictable. Fewer clever shortcuts, fewer surprises.
That’s essentially how GTWY approaches agent workflows, and it’s been a practical way to keep agents aligned without relying on heavier prompts or post-hoc validation.