01 / Choose the right shape
A workflow and an agent
are different choices.
In its engineering guide, Anthropic distinguishes predefined workflows from agents that dynamically choose their process and tool use. It also advises starting with the simplest adequate approach. That distinction is useful when deciding how much freedom a particular task actually needs. Source: Building effective agents.
A fixed sequence may be enough to classify a request, retrieve a policy and prepare a draft. An open research question may need a system that chooses follow-up steps as it discovers information. Neither shape is automatically better. The choice should follow the task and the evidence of where a simpler approach falls short.
For a buyer, “agentic” is a starting point for questions. Ask which steps are predefined, which decisions the model can make and which tools it can use. A visual diagram is useful only if the team can explain the work behind each box.
02 / Keep responsibility visible
Separate roles when
the work justifies it.
A research role, drafting role and checking role can make a workflow easier to describe. They do not have to correspond to three independent agents. Some tasks may work better as one model call, conventional code or a human decision. The design should earn its complexity.
Anthropic’s account of its multi-agent research system describes an orchestrator coordinating specialised subagents, along with the engineering and evaluation work required to make the system useful. It is an account of a particular implementation, not a guarantee that dividing any task among more agents improves it. Source: How we built our multi-agent research system.
A practical role brief can be short: the question this role answers, the material it may use, the result it must return and the conditions under which it should stop. Those four elements make disagreements and incomplete work easier to locate.
03 / Treat the gaps as part of the work
A handoff needs
more than the last answer.
Imagine a research role handing a summary to a drafting role. If only the prose moves forward, the draft may lose the sources, uncertainty or constraints that made the summary meaningful. A better handoff can include the result, supporting material, unresolved questions and the next role’s instructions.
The same issue appears when a person returns to a paused task. They need enough context to understand what has already happened. LangGraph’s project documentation describes persistence, durable execution and human-in-the-loop capabilities as parts of its orchestration approach. These are examples of infrastructure concerns a team should consider, not a requirement to choose that particular framework. Source: LangGraph overview.
A useful handoff record
- The original request and its allowed scope.
- The result so far, with supporting source references.
- What remains uncertain or incomplete.
- The proposed next action and who may authorise it.
This is an editorial checklist for product planning. The right record depends on the workflow, and sensitive information should not be copied merely because a field exists.
04 / Give people a meaningful decision
Review the consequential step.
A review screen should tell a person what is about to change, why that change was proposed and what evidence supports it. A generic “approve” button provides little help if the reviewer has to reconstruct the entire task first.
Consider a support workflow. Drafting a suggested response, sending it to a customer and issuing a refund are different actions. A product can define different permissions for each. It should also give an uncertain or unsupported request somewhere to go, such as a clearly owned exception queue.
Review can be designed into the workflow from the beginning: before an external message, a record change or another consequential action. The frequency and scope should fit the task. The examples on this site use review points to make a concept understandable; they do not establish a complete control policy for a real deployment.
05 / Judge the work, not the theatre
What would make
the workflow worth using?
Choose a representative set of tasks before claiming a result. For a research assistant, examine whether important statements are supported and how much correction a reviewer needs to make. For a support assistant, inspect routing errors, draft quality and how exceptions are handled. For a handoff tool, examine missing context and whether the receiving team can continue the work.
Keep the comparison fair. Record the conditions, the model and tool versions, and the baseline process. A polished successful run is an illustration; it cannot stand in for an evaluation across the situations a customer will encounter.
The CueAgents name fits this practical view of agentic work: a clear cue, defined roles and a result someone can inspect. A first company offering could be narrow. The name has room for an expanding set of workflows as the business demonstrates useful results.
Explore the illustrative workflows ↗Independent educational commentary accompanying the CueAgents.com domain presentation. Linked organisations do not endorse this name. Examples are conceptual and do not represent an operating service.