[zambelli]

I think I'm aligned with the idea that some parts of some workflows are mandatory - auth, read before edit, etc.

But otherwise, forge really doesn't own or opine much of the workflow. Step enforcement exists if you want it, so do prerequisites, but the idea is that those could be conditional or optional (you may never need to edit a file).

The guardrails are designed to work for non deterministic flows or deterministic ones. In the latter, you just might not have one of the guardrails active. It's much more about nudging the model back on track than laying more obvious tracks, in a sense.

Overall, agentic reliability is definitely an active field.

[blurbleblurble]

In this blog post I'm reading their call for "control flow" as a generalization of exactly what your work illustrates so nicely.

The blog post doesn't say to me "we need to start encoding specifically opinionated conditional branching statements that guide the model" rather I'm hearing a call to realize the broader principles of control flow itself relevant for composing programs with LLMs.

I think your work "nudges" us in that direction.

[zambelli]

Nice ;). I'll take a closer read of it, that's on me - I am definitely seeing more people looking in this direction as agents start to ramp in production at the enterprise level, which I suspect is highlighting some of these failure modes at higher stakes. And also the cloud frontier API bills.