Managing AI Agents Like a Pro: A Real-World Automation Pipeline

Everyone thinks AI agents are magic. You give them a task, they figure it out, and boom, work done.

Reality check: agents are glorified pattern matchers with no common sense. Without proper constraints, they hallucinate, go off-script, or produce endless essays when you asked for a summary.

The skill isn't "using AI." It's managing AI, designing the guardrails, contracts, and orchestration that keep agents productive.

Here's a real case study from my own setup.

---

The Problem: A Daily Data Pipeline

I run a laptop comparison site. Every night, it needs to:

1. Ingest a product feed

2. Enrich each product with specs

3. Generate AI descriptions in Spanish using a local LLM

4. Score data quality

5. Sync to a local database

6. Report what happened

The first five steps are deterministic. Bash scripts, TypeScript, PostgreSQL. Boring, reliable infrastructure.

But step six? That's where most people would either:

• Skip it (fly blind)

• Do it manually (waste time)

• Or unleash an AI and hope it produces something readable

I chose option four: orchestrate the AI with strict constraints.

---

The Architecture: Four Layers

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│  LAYER 1: CRON (System Scheduler)                               │
│  0 2 * * * → triggers the nightly run                           │
└──────────────────────────┬──────────────────────────────────────┘
                           │
┌──────────────────────────▼──────────────────────────────────────┐
│  LAYER 2: PIPELINE (Deterministic)                              │
│  Bash → TypeScript scripts → logs to files                      │
│  ingest → enrich → describe → insights → quality → sync         │
│                                                                 │
│  Output: structured logs in pipeline/logs/YYYYMMDD-HHMMSS/      │
└──────────────────────────┬──────────────────────────────────────┘
                           │
┌──────────────────────────▼──────────────────────────────────────┐
│  LAYER 3: AI ANALYSIS (Constrained)                             │
│  Codex (OpenAI) reads logs, produces report                     │
│                                                                 │
│  Input: 6 log files (ingest, enrich, describe, etc.)            │
│  Prompt: strict template with 4 sections, max 1200 chars        │
│  Output: concise Spanish summary                                │
└──────────────────────────┬──────────────────────────────────────┘
                           │
┌──────────────────────────▼──────────────────────────────────────┐
│  LAYER 4: DELIVERY (OpenClaw Telegram)                          │
│  Report sent to my Telegram group every morning                 │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

The insight: keep AI away from decisions, use it only for synthesis.

---

The Fallback Strategy

What happens when Codex fails? Or returns garbage?

if ! codex "${CODEX_ARGS[@]}" - < "$PROMPT_FILE"; then
  echo "WARN: codex report generation failed. Falling back to summary."
  # Generate minimal fallback report from summary.md
fi

if [[ ! -s "$REPORT_FILE" ]]; then
  echo "WARN: Empty Codex report. Writing fallback report."
  # Even more minimal fallback
fi

Two layers of degradation:

1. If Codex errors → use the structured summary

2. If output is empty → use a template with "review manually"

The pipeline never breaks. It just gets less fancy.

---

Evolution: From Fragile to Robust

This system wasn't born perfect. It evolved through three commits:

Each iteration made the system more unattended without sacrificing reliability.

---

Why This Matters (The Meta-Point)

The hot take in tech right now is: "AI agents will replace engineers!"

The boring truth: AI agents need engineers to design their operating environment.

Think of it like managing people:

• You don't hire someone and say "figure it out"

• You give clear objectives, constraints, feedback loops, and escalation paths

Agents are the same. Without:

• Input contracts (what format, what fields)

• Output contracts (format, length, language)

• Fallback strategies (what when it fails)

• Observability (logs, reports, alerts)

...you're not managing AI. You're praying to AI.

---

The Checklist

If you're building with AI agents, run through this:

Input Design

• [ ] Do I know exactly what the agent will receive?

• [ ] Is the input validated before reaching the agent?

• [ ] Do I have example inputs for testing?

Prompt Engineering (Constraints)

• [ ] Is the output format specified (markdown, JSON, specific sections)?

• [ ] Are length limits explicit (chars, tokens, sections)?

• [ ] Is the tone/voice defined (professional, casual, technical)?

• [ ] Are there examples of good/bad output?

Fallback Strategy

• [ ] What happens if the agent errors?

• [ ] What happens if output is empty?

• [ ] What happens if output is malformed?

• [ ] Is there a human notification path?

Observability

• [ ] Can I see what the agent received?

• [ ] Can I see what the agent produced?

• [ ] Can I reproduce the execution?

• [ ] Is there a history I can audit?

Orchestration

• [ ] Is the agent isolated to one task (not a "do everything" black box)?

• [ ] Are deterministic steps separated from AI steps?

• [ ] Can I run the pipeline without the AI (dry-run mode)?

---

Closing

AI agents aren't magic. They're specialized tools that need specialized management.

The competitive advantage isn't knowing which model to use. It's knowing how to:

• Constrain the problem space

• Design reliable handoffs

• Build fallback systems

• Keep humans in the loop when needed

This pipeline runs every night without me touching it. Not because AI is smart, but because the system around the AI is well-designed.

That's the job. That's the skill. Everything else is just API calls.