What is a workflow agent?
A workflow agent carries out a defined business process from the first input to the finished deliverable, such as a proposal draft or a periodic report. The sequence of steps is fixed by the organisation, and a model makes the judgement calls inside each step. That arrangement keeps the agent predictable enough to audit while still handling work that a static template cannot.
Also called: Task agent, Process agent
Why the process is fixed and only the judgement is delegated
An open-ended agent asked to produce a report will choose its own route each time, and two executions of the same request can take entirely different paths. A reviewer cannot sign off on a method that changes with every request. A workflow agent keeps the route constant and delegates only the decisions a person would otherwise make at each step. The output can then be checked against a known procedure instead of being reverse engineered after the fact.
- A fixed sequence lets a reviewer compare one output against the previous one.
- Each step can carry its own permissions, so the agent reads only what that step needs.
- Failures are located at a named step instead of somewhere inside a long conversation.
- The process itself can be versioned and approved like any other controlled document.
How a workflow agent works
- The workflow is defined as an ordered set of steps with an input and an output each.
- Retrieval steps draw only on the sources the requesting user is permitted to read.
- A model performs the judgement inside each step against a written instruction.
- Intermediate results are stored, so a reviewer can inspect any stage of the work.
- Checks at defined points stop the workflow when an output falls below a threshold.
- The finished deliverable is released for human review with its sources attached.
How a workflow agent is evaluated
A workflow agent is evaluated on the deliverable it produces and on the consistency of the route it took. Review the following across a fixed set of representative requests:
- share of deliverables accepted by a reviewer without material correction
- consistency of the output when the same request is repeated
- proportion of claims in the deliverable traceable to a cited source
- steps at which the workflow halted, and whether each halt was justified
- time to a reviewed deliverable compared with the manual process
Limitations, risks and common failure modes
- A process written too loosely lets the agent improvise exactly where control mattered.
- Errors in an early step propagate quietly into a polished final document.
- Reviewers begin approving fluent output without reading the cited sources.
- A change to the underlying process is not reflected in the agent definition.