How Agents Navigate the Agentic Web
Every agent session begins the same way. A process starts. A context window opens. And the agent looks around.
What happens next depends entirely on what is there to find.
Every agent session begins the same way. A process starts. A context window opens. And the agent looks around.
What happens next depends entirely on what is there to find.
A new benchmark gave eight LLMs the same complex build task. The ranking is interesting. The self-assessment failure is structurally inevitable -- and it changes how we should design agent runtimes.
AI agents are getting remarkably good at doing things. They read code, traverse APIs, generate summaries, and execute multi-step plans across sprawling codebases. What they are still bad at is knowing what they should not do.
Today, an agent dropped into a new repository does the equivalent of walking into a library and reading every book on every shelf before deciding which one is relevant. This is expensive, slow, and -- in environments where some shelves contain confidential material -- genuinely dangerous.
A brief arrives on Friday afternoon. A compliance startup is building an AI-powered scoring engine. They have a working architecture. What they do not have are settled positions on five hard architectural questions. The deadline is Monday.
The question I asked myself was not "how do I answer these five questions?" It was "what knowledge infrastructure do I need to answer them well?"
That reframing is the entire methodology in one sentence.
Fast development with AI doesn't just generate features. It generates disorder at the same velocity.
That's the part nobody talks about. The productivity numbers are real — 53,000 lines, 42 features, five phases of code analysis built in a weekend sprint. But every line you write is also a line you haven't reviewed, a boundary you haven't enforced, a vector you haven't considered.
The entropy compounds with the output.
I pointed Synthesis's static security scanner at a Norwegian open-source Java portfolio -- a production SSO system spanning 60+ repositories, used across enterprise deployments. One command. Thirty-one seconds. Ninety-five HIGH-severity findings.
Over the years I've tried a lot of organisational models. Standups. Retrospectives. Timesheets. Sprint planning. The full suite.
At eXOReaction, we've converged on something different. It's not a framework with a name. It's more a set of positions — things we've decided, and held to, even when they make people uncomfortable.
In late 2024 and through 2025, we published a series of short horror stories about building with LLMs. Not fictional in the sense of being made up — fictional in the sense of being slightly dramatised versions of things that happen, or will happen, or already have happened to someone you know.
The format was deliberate. Security warnings written as dry checklists get skimmed. Security warnings written as campfire stories get remembered.
Here are all eight tales.
Here's a question most organisations can't answer: what was Pump 47's vibration reading before it failed?
Not a complex question. A specific measurement, at a specific point in time, for a specific piece of equipment. But in most asset management systems, if that reading was overwritten when the failure was logged, it's gone. The data archaeology required to reconstruct it — if it's possible at all — involves manual investigation across multiple systems, log files, and human memory.
The same pattern applies everywhere.
I'm always shocked by comments like this: