Marvin

In 2025, a market research pipeline entered an infinite loop and kept running for 11 days before a billing alert finally caught it. Nobody noticed because there was no per-agent budget ceiling, no circuit breaker, and no mechanism to halt execution before the next API call. By the time

Running multiple AI agents is easy. Coordinating them reliably is the hard part most tutorials skip. Enterprise adoption of multi-agent workflows surged dramatically in 2025, and by 2026 a majority of engineering organizations report running multi-step agent pipelines in production. Yet most of those teams also report that

The industry has never had more evaluation tools. DeepEval, RAGAS, Arize, Langfuse, LangSmith, OpenAI Evals, Weights & Biases, Galileo: the options fill a full page of search results. Yet production LLM systems are measured more poorly than most teams realize. Hallucinations slip past. Tool failures go undetected. Model upgrades ship

If your AI agent was profitable at 1,000 requests per month but bankrupt at 10,000, context bloat is probably the reason. Every turn of a multi-turn session appends more tokens to the next call, and most teams never instrument that growth until the invoice arrives. The good

Streaming token output feels like real-time intelligence. Tokens appear letter by letter, the UI feels alive, and users trust that the system is working on their behalf. But the moment you wire that stream into an agentic loop with tool calls, the illusion falls apart. Underneath the animated cursor,

If you are running autonomous agents in production and caching feels like a nice-to-have, you are probably leaving 40 to 80 percent of your API spend on the table. A typical eight-step research agent processing 5,000 tokens of context per step incurs 40,000 input tokens

When a multi-agent AI system fails in production, the culprit is almost never the model. It is the handoff. Context gets lost between a researcher and a drafter; a reviewer receives a bloated 200-message thread it has to process from scratch; a constraint changes mid-workflow and the

Reasoning models are the best tools available for hard logic, math, and code problems. They are also capable of quietly running up a $100,000 monthly inference bill before your team notices. The core insight of this article is simple: reasoning models should almost never be your default inference path.

For nine days, one company's customer support agent was wrong about roughly one ticket in fourteen. It routed cases to the wrong team, attached incorrect resolution notes, and sent customers to appointments they had already canceled. Every infrastructure dashboard showed green the entire time: 99.9% uptime, normal

The agent memory problem was never really about storage. It was always about context assembly. Once engineering teams running production agents in 2026 realized that distinction, the dominant retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) pattern started looking less like a foundation and more like a bottleneck. The shift is now measurable: storage-