#research-agents
Every post tagged "research-agents".
8 posts · showing 1–8
-
Your Research Agent Read One Poisoned Web Page, and It Still Had the Email Tool. Lock Risky Tools the Moment Untrusted Text Enters the Context.
Prompt-injection filters try to spot the bad sentence. A taint flag skips that guess: once fetched text is in the context, the tools that can do damage are no longer offered.
-
Your Research Agent Scored 100% on Citations. The Grader Only Checked That a Source Was Attached.
An eval that has never failed anything is not proof of a good agent. Before you trust a grader's score, feed it answers you know are wrong and see if it notices.
-
Your Research Agent Passed the Eval Once. Run Every Case Five Times and Grade the Worst Run.
A single green run tells you the agent can do the task, not that it will. Repeat each eval case, split the suite into solid, flaky and broken, and the flaky bucket becomes your real to-do list.
-
Your Retriever Returned 12 Chunks. The Agent Only Really Read 3 of Them.
The correct passage was in the prompt and the agent wrote around it anyway. That's not a retrieval bug — it's a placement bug, and there's a one-minute test that tells the two apart before you touch your embeddings.
-
Map-Reduce or Sequential Refine? How an Agent Should Read 400 Pages
Chunking 400 pages of contracts forces a choice most teams make by accident. One shape quietly drops evidence as it goes; the other can never spot a conflict between two documents — and the fix is not the pattern, it's what the map step returns.
-
Four Tool Calls to One Answer: A Research Run, Annotated
A research agent answers one question in four steps. Reading what changed in the transcript between each step explains more about how agents work than any diagram of the loop.
-
The Sales-Research Agent and the Problem of Stale Facts
Every fact in the brief had been true. None was labelled with when — so someone opened a call congratulating a person on a role they'd left a year ago.
-
The Research Agent That Cited the Wrong Page
Every source was real and had been read. Two citations still pointed at the wrong page — one at a source that disagreed. Attribution is a lookup, and generation isn't a lookup.