Who controls the coding agent: the person or the cycle he designed?

We’re used to discussing the prompts, context, and binding of a single agent launch. But when the agent returns to work—on a schedule, an event, or the outcome of a past passage—the task becomes architectural: who finds the job, checks the result, stores the condition, and can stop the cycle.

14 July 16:00 I'll go to Moscow live with Maxim Smirnov. Let's disassemble the HuaShu material.Loop Engineering: The Anthropic Playbook for Designing Systems That Prompt Your Agents? This will be the 19th edition of Research Insights Made Simple.

Maxim is an IT architect, author of the Telegram channel “Architecture of IT Solutions” @it\ arch. In the past - Head of the IT Architecture Department "Beeline" and Chief Architect of Information Systems of the Bank of Russia; speaker, author and teacher of courses on IT architecture.

Formally, this is not an Anthropic publication or a peer-reviewed article, but an independent working summary. (working note) HuaShu. The strength of this whitepaper is the precise formulation of the problem: stop pushing the agent with another prompt and design a limited, observable and stopable cycle.

Let's talk: How designing cycles differs from tying a single run and why a cron with a repeating bump is not yet a cycle How job search is related (discovery)transmission (handoff)verification, condition preservation and planning;

• why it is dangerous for an agent to trust the verification of his work and how to separate the performer and the inspector; What debts accumulate in autonomous cycles, from verification debt to loss of system understanding.
• what restrictions are needed around the LLM: isolation, limits, log, rollback and emergency stop; where engineering judgment, responsibility, and human checkpoint remain.

The main question of the airwaves is how to give the agent a repetitive job without allowing him to accumulate errors unnoticed.

#AI4SDLC #Agents #Architecture #Engineering #Research