A shared framework for scoping agentic AI when product wants results and engineering wants guardrails
Intro: When AI systems are fragile, collaboration isn't optional
If you're building with AI, you've probably heard someone say, "What we really want is something agentic."
Sometimes that means "a smart assistant that gets things done."
Sometimes it means "an automated workflow that requires zero input."
Sometimes it means "we don't totally know, but it should be impressive."
The problem isn't ambition. It's ambiguity.
Without a shared way to scope complexity, product teams design for trust and usability while engineering teams try to contain risk and avoid catastrophic failure. Both sides are right—but without a common frame, the work gets slow, brittle, and expensive.
So here's a model we use to cut through the noise.
Agentic Behavior in Practice: Five Patterns We Actually See
We're not claiming these are universal levels. We're saying these are the five patterns that come up again and again in the field—regardless of what your team calls them.
← Swipe to see more →
👈 👉
| If you mean... |
What you're building |
What to expect |
| "It runs a task when I ask" |
Single-step trigger |
Fast to implement, easy to trust |
| "It chooses a tool to use based on the request" |
Tool selection logic |
Still bounded, needs good fallback |
| "It can follow a multi-step process" |
Sequenced workflow |
Fragile if accuracy or handoff is unclear |
| "It figures out what to do and how to do it" |
Self-directed agent |
High risk, often unstable |
| "It acts on its own without being asked" |
Autonomous initiator |
Not real (yet), not shippable |
This isn't about dumbing things down. It's about giving cross-functional teams a shared mental model so no one is designing for something that can't be built—or building something no one actually wants to use.
From the Product Side: What You Should Be Asking
← Swipe to see more →
👈 👉
| What you're building |
What to ask |
What to design for |
| Single-step trigger |
What's the clearest, most valuable task this can automate? |
Simplicity, speed, clarity |
| Tool selection logic |
How will users know what's happening behind the scenes? |
Confidence thresholds, user control |
| Sequenced workflow |
What's the trust floor? Where does the human step in? |
Review workflows, fallbacks |
| Self-directed agent |
What's our risk tolerance? What happens when it fails silently? |
Expectation setting, system visibility |
| Autonomous initiator |
Why do we want this? What else could we test instead? |
Controlled pilot, minimal blast radius |
From the Engineering Side: What You Need to Build for
← Swipe to see more →
👈 👉
| What you're building |
What to engineer |
Risks to watch |
| Single-step trigger |
One API call or tool execution |
Minor if isolated |
| Tool selection logic |
Tool routing, parameter handling, structured outputs |
Tool misuse, unexpected results |
| Sequenced workflow |
State management, restart logic, traceability |
Compounding error, poor handoff |
| Self-directed agent |
Dynamic planning, sandboxing, override hooks |
Unpredictable chains, legal exposure |
| Autonomous initiator |
Event detection, continual context, scheduling |
Zero visibility, irrecoverable failures |
When You're Working Together
← Swipe to see more →
👈 👉
| What you're building |
Align on |
Risk posture |
Viable starting point |
| Single-step trigger |
Clear user value |
Low |
Automate a known, frequent action |
| Tool selection logic |
Output transparency |
Medium |
Let users approve or edit output |
| Sequenced workflow |
Human handoff points |
Medium–high |
Start with structured cases only |
| Self-directed agent |
Acceptable error ceiling |
High |
Pilot with internal testers |
| Autonomous initiator |
Why now? |
Critical |
Don't. Fund R&D instead. |
Want to try this live? We've been building out a Miro-based template version for real-time scoping. Reach out if you'd like access.
Final Thought
Agentic AI isn't just a modeling challenge. It's a collaboration challenge.
Product wants to build trust. Engineering wants to avoid disaster. If you align on what you're really trying to ship—and what it will take to keep it stable—you can move faster without breaking everything.
