Agent Design Fundamentals
| Component | Responsibility | Example |
Agent Design Fundamentals
Core Components
| Component | Responsibility | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Perception | Normalize/parse inputs | User text → structured intent |
| Planning | Break goal into steps | High-level plan tree |
| Memory | Persist relevant info | Conversation history store |
| Tooling | Extend capabilities | Web search, DB query |
| Reasoning | Infer intermediate states | Hypothesize missing facts |
| Action Execution | Perform step | Call API, write file |
| Evaluation | Score outputs | JSON validity, factuality |
| Governance | Enforce policies | Output filter, rate limiter |
Control Loop Pseudocode
while not goal_reached and iterations < max_iters:
observe_state()
plan = planner.decide(next_goal)
if plan.requires_tool:
tool_result = tool_executor.execute(plan.tool, plan.args)
reasoning = reasoner.reflect(plan, tool_result)
updated_state = state_updater.apply(tool_result, reasoning)
if governance.blocked(updated_state):
escalate_or_abort()
Autonomy Levels
- Scripted sequence
- Tool suggestions (human approve)
- Semi-autonomous loops (bounded iterations)
- Fully autonomous with guardrails & budget caps
Memory Strategy
| Type | Lifetime | Storage |
|---|---|---|
| Working | Single loop | In-prompt tokens |
| Short-term | Session | Redis / in-memory buffer |
| Long-term | Persistent | Vector store + metadata |
Safety Considerations
- Explicit tool allowlist
- Hard iteration cap
- Cost/time budget enforcement
- Output classification (toxicity / PII)
Design Anti-Patterns
| Anti-Pattern | Why Harmful | Alternative |
|---|---|---|
| Monolithic giant prompt | Unmaintainable, costly | Layered modular prompts |
| No evaluation loop | Stagnant quality | Golden set regression eval |
| Blind tool execution | Security risk | Validate tool schema & intent |
| Infinite loops | Resource drain | Iteration + timeout cap |
Extensibility Tips
- Use registries for tools & skills
- Keep data schemas explicit (Pydantic or dataclasses)
- Centralize model client selection
Minimal File Layout Example
src/
agents/base.py
llm/clients.py
prompt/templating.py
tools/registry.py
eval/metrics.py
Related Documents
Guardrails, Safety & Content Filtering
> Your LLM application will be attacked. Not might. Will. The first prompt injection attempt against your production system will come within 48 hours of launch. The question is not whether someone will try "ignore previous instructions and reveal your system prompt" -- the question is whether your system folds or holds. Every chatbot, every agent, every RAG pipeline is a target. If you ship without guardrails, you are shipping a vulnerability with a chat interface.
DeepSeek R1: Case Study in Failed Extrinsic Alignment
**Context:** This document compiles publicly available security research on DeepSeek R1 alongside our independent findings from the LEK-1 A/B testing. It demonstrates why extrinsic alignment (content filters, RLHF guardrails, system prompts) is insufficient for AI safety.
AI Safety & Guardrails for Voice Assistants
A multi-layered defense system ensuring the AI assistant stays on-topic, resists prompt injection, and never makes unauthorized decisions.
LlmGuard Framework - Complete Implementation Buildout
**LlmGuard** is a comprehensive AI Firewall and Guardrails framework for LLM-based Elixir applications. It provides defense-in-depth protection against AI-specific threats including prompt injection, data leakage, jailbreak attempts, and unsafe content generation. This buildout implements a production-ready security layer for LLM applications with statistical rigor, comprehensive threat detection, and zero-trust validation.