Page 6 of 8~120 min topic

Agents in code

Instrument the bounded research agent

Page 6 adds signals that distinguish bad input from component failure in the bounded research agent over a fixture KB.

~15 min this pageTesting and observability

1Learn the idea

Read

Emit stage signals

Instrument the bounded research agent over a fixture KB so a run records enough structure to debug offline: counts, latency if relevant, pass/fail of step count ≤ max, and a stable stage name. Redact secrets and raw credentials from every event.

Read

Emit and assert

const event={stage:'research-agent', steps:2, citations:1, abstained:false};
console.log(JSON.stringify(event));

Expected evidence: agent telemetry. Prefer JSON or structured text you can grep in CI over prose logs for agents-in-code.

Read

Lock signals with a regression test

Turn one historical failure—especially infinite tool loop—into a test that fails if the signal disappears for the bounded research agent. Observability without a failing test is optional decoration; observability with a test is part of the agents-in-code artifact.

Read

Lab notebook: signal schema

Draft a three-field event for the bounded research agent: stage, ok, and one domain field derived from step count ≤ max; citation coverage; abstention on empty search. Add fixture_id or docs_version when content can change. Explicitly list fields that must never appear (tokens, passwords, raw prompts) because agent inventing tools outside the registry mid-run is in scope for this lab.

Wire one assertion that fails if the bounded research agent event is missing after a run. Observability that cannot fail a test will not survive contact with a busy agents-in-code repository.

Read

Worked judgment

Imagine a teammate opens only your event stream after a bad deploy. Could they tell whether fixture KB with 4 notes + max_steps=3 was wrong, whether infinite tool loop, or final answer with no citations after search returned, or whether agent inventing tools outside the registry mid-run slipped through? If not, rename fields until those three stories are distinguishable.

Read

Why this stage matters for the bounded research agent

At the testing and observability stage for agents-in-code, the job is narrower than finishing a product demo. You are creating one progressive evidence piece about fixture KB with 4 notes + max_steps=3 that later pages inherit without redefining success. Keep that fixture small enough to inspect by hand, keep outputs copy-pasteable as text, and refuse to narrate this baseline as if it were a production SLA: single-shot LLM answer without search.

For this page specifically, success looks like a structured event schema locked by a test while still centering the user decision to search a local knowledge base then produce a cited answer within a step budget. If you cannot point to a file, command, or assertion that proves that for the bounded research agent, stay on this page instead of advancing.

Glossary: tool · Glossary: structured output · Cheatsheet: production ops signals

Previous · Next

Go deeper

Before you start

Why this matters

Write the single log line or metric event that would tell you whether a bad result came from input vs implementation for the bounded research agent. If your line could not tell them apart, redesign it before coding.

In the wild

See how this idea shows up as a product and a company — then come back to the lesson. Skills transfer across vendors.

Check your understanding

Page assessment

Answer from memory. Completion is saved from this evidence, not from opening the next page.

1. Can input faults be distinguished from component faults in the event?
2. Are secrets redacted from logs?
3. Is there a test that fails if the signal vanishes?
4. Does the event still reference the decision: search a local knowledge base then produce a cited answer within a step budget?

All responses are required.