AGENTSTeja
I had an agent that worked, and I wanted it sharper. So I did the obvious thing: I added a line telling the model to be careful, think it through, and only answer when it was sure. Every instinct says that should help.
Read the full learning →#prompting#llm#less-is-more
AGENTSTeja
I had a step that needed a yes or no judgment on some messy data, and my first instinct was to hand it to an LLM. It felt like the modern, obvious choice.
Read the full learning →#simplicity#cost#validation
AGENTSTeja
There is a moment where your benchmark says a new approach is clearly better, and you have to decide how to ship it. The tempting path is to graft the new idea onto the old code so you keep everything that already works.
Read the full learning →#refactor#architecture
AGENTSTeja
It is easy to burn real money on a batch that was never going to work, and find out only after it finishes. I have done it. The fix is boring and it has never failed me.
Read the full learning →#cost#batch#ops
AGENTSTeja
When you run agents in parallel to move faster, the thing that breaks is not the producing, it is the quality. You end up with a pile of output and no trust in any of it.
Read the full learning →#multi-agent#qa#scale
AGENTSTeja
I rewrote a working extractor and it came out a lot cheaper per run with no accuracy loss. That sounds boring next to a new feature, but at any real volume the cost line is what decides whether a thing can run at all. When something works, it is worth a pass just to make it cheaper. Same output, smaller bill, is a feature.
Read the full learning →#cost#scale