Key Takeaways
- An agentic workflow is an automated process in which a model selects the next step while the process runs, instead of following a sequence written in advance.
- Anthropic’s engineering guidance draws the line at orchestration: workflows run through predefined code paths, and agents direct their own process and tool use.
- Six parts carry every agentic workflow, and the policy layer that decides which tool calls are allowed is the one most teams build last.
- The pattern buys you inputs nobody enumerated. It costs you a reproducible run, a cheap debugging loop, and a blast radius bounded by code.
- Once a workflow holds cloud credentials, what it can reach becomes a cloud security question. Orca supplies the asset, identity, network path, and data context that answers it.
An agentic workflow is an automated process in which a language model chooses the next step while the process runs. A person defines the goal, the tools, and the boundaries. The model decides the order. That one property separates it from the scripted automation already running in your pipelines, where every branch was authored before the first execution.
The meaning of agentic workflows is somewhat elastic, so the definition above needs one test attached to it. If you can draw the full execution path before the run starts, the workflow is not agentic.
This guide covers the definition and the place it breaks down, the six components a working system needs, and one pass through the execution loop. It then compares the pattern against deterministic automation, shows where it earns its cost, and sets out what to sequence before production.
What are agentic workflows?
Agentic workflows are automated processes where a model plans the sequence at run time and uses tools to act on each decision. The goal is fixed. The path to it is not. Everything else in this article follows from that trade.
The term covers a range. At one end sits a job that calls a model once and branches on the answer. At the other sits a process that runs for twenty iterations and picks its own tools each time.
Workflows and Agents Are Not the Same Thing
Anthropic published the cleanest version of the distinction in Building effective agents on December 19, 2024. Its architectural split is worth quoting exactly. Workflows “are systems where LLMs and tools are orchestrated through predefined code paths.” Agents “are systems where LLMs dynamically direct their own processes and tool usage, maintaining control over how they accomplish tasks.”
By that taxonomy, the phrase “agentic workflow” straddles two categories on purpose. The middle ground is where the interesting systems sit: a fixed outer shape with a model choosing inside it. Anthropic also names five composable patterns that teams keep reinventing: prompt chaining, routing, parallelization, orchestrator-workers, and evaluator-optimizer. The post now carries a note that much of the tooling it describes has changed since December 2024, so the patterns are the durable half.
What Makes a Workflow Agentic
A fair objection comes up early. This is a state machine with a language model in the middle and a new name on it. The plumbing is largely the same, and conceding that costs nothing. Queues, retries, state stores, idempotency keys, and timeouts all carry over unchanged.
The difference sits in one place: who selects the next step. In a scripted job, a developer wrote the branch and the set of reachable states is finite and readable. In an agentic workflow, the model reads the current state and picks. Two consequences follow: the reachable states stop being enumerable, and the same input can produce two different paths on two runs.
Components of AI agentic workflows
AI agentic workflows need six parts. A prototype can demo convincingly on the first three alone. The other three are what production asks for.
The Six Parts Every Agentic Workflow Needs
- A model that decides. The reasoning step reads the current state and proposes the next action. This is the only component that has no deterministic equivalent.
- A tool interface. Each tool needs a name, an input schema, and a description precise enough to act on. Amazon Bedrock AgentCore exposes this as Gateway, which converts APIs, Lambda functions, and existing services into Model Context Protocol (MCP) compatible tools.
- State and memory. One run needs session state. A series of runs needs something durable. Google’s managed agent platform splits these into Sessions and a Memory Bank for long-term facts.
- An execution environment. Tool calls have to run somewhere isolated. AgentCore Harness runs each session in an isolated microVM with filesystem and shell access.
- Observability. AgentCore Observability describes the requirement well: inspect the execution path, audit intermediate outputs, and debug failures. Without a per-step trace, a wrong answer is unexplainable.
- A policy and permission layer. This decides which tools the workflow may call, with which credentials, against which resources.
The Component Teams Underbuild
The policy layer is the one a prompt appears to make unnecessary, and writing “never delete production data” into a system prompt is a request to the model. Enforcing it at the tool boundary is a control. AWS shipped that boundary as AgentCore Policy, whose rules are written in Cedar. Every tool call through its Gateway is intercepted and evaluated “at the boundary outside of the agent’s code.”
The design question is narrow, and it belongs before the first run. Which tools may this workflow call, what actions may it perform, and under what conditions? AI guardrails handle the content side of that question, filtering what goes into the model and what comes out. The permission side is separate, and it decides what a wrong decision can actually touch.
How agentic workflows work
Agentic AI workflows run as a loop. Each iteration repeats four moves: assemble context, choose a step, execute it, then check the result against the goal. The loop exits when the goal check passes, when a stopping condition fires, or when the workflow asks a person.
One Pass Through the Loop
Take a workflow that investigates a failing continuous integration job. The trigger fires on a failed build. Context assembly pulls the job logs, the diff, and the last three runs of the same job. The model reads that and proposes one action: fetch the full stack trace for the failing test.
The tool runs and returns real output, and that return is what keeps the loop honest. Anthropic makes the point directly: agents “gain ‘ground truth’ from the environment at each step (such as tool call results or code execution) to assess its progress.” The trace comes back, the model revises its hypothesis, and it proposes reading the test file next. Nobody wrote that branch, and the branch depends on what the previous call returned.
Two boundaries keep the loop from running forever. A stopping condition caps the iterations, and Anthropic names the common form: “a maximum number of iterations” to maintain control. A goal check decides whether the work is done, and writing that check is harder than writing the prompt.
Agentic workflows vs. traditional workflows
Comparing the two on features produces a useless table. Comparing them on properties produces a decision. Six properties change the moment a model selects the next step.
| Property | Traditional workflow | Agentic workflow |
| Who selects the next step | A developer, at authoring time | The model, at run time |
| Behavior on an unexpected input | Fails, or falls through to a default branch | Attempts a path nobody wrote |
| Reproducing a run | The same input returns the same path | The same input can return a different path |
| Where the cost sits | Compute per step, predictable per run | Tokens per iteration, variable per run |
| How a failure is debugged | Read the stack trace and the branch taken | Read the decision trace and the tool output behind each choice |
| Blast radius of a wrong step | Bounded by the code paths written | Bounded by the permissions granted |
That last row is the one to sit with. In a scripted job, the worst case is a path a developer wrote and somebody reviewed. In an agentic workflow, the worst case is anything the granted credentials allow, so the permission set stops being an operational detail and becomes the design. Scoping that role down to what the workflow actually needs is the only control that still holds when the model picks a step nobody predicted.
Use cases and examples for agentic workflows
The agentic workflows examples worth copying share a property: the branch count is large, the useful branches are rare, and nobody can enumerate them in advance. When that is not true, the pattern is overhead.
Where the Pattern Earns Its Cost
Repository triage. A workflow reads a new issue, searches the codebase, reproduces the failure in a sandbox, and opens a scoped pull request. The number of files to change is unknown until the reproduction runs. Anthropic’s orchestrator-workers pattern covers this shape, since “the number of files that need to be changed and the nature of the change in each file likely depend on the task.”
Support escalation. A workflow gathers evidence across billing, telemetry, and ticket history before routing to a queue. Which system to query second depends on what the first query returned, so a fixed sequence collects the wrong evidence most of the time.
Data-quality investigation. A metric moves nine percent overnight. The workflow checks upstream job runs, recent schema changes, and partner feed timestamps, then reports what it checked and what it ruled out. The report is worth more than the verdict, because a person still owns the call.
Where a Deterministic Pipeline Still Wins
GitHub’s own documentation draws the boundary plainly. Use standard GitHub Actions “for deterministic builds, tests, linting, deployments, and reproducible scripts.” Billing runs, release promotion, and compliance evidence all belong there.
Use one decision rule. If you can write the branch, write the branch. A model choosing among three known options costs more, runs slower, and gives you a worse audit trail than an if statement. Reserve the pattern for the case where enumerating the options is the actual problem.
Advantages of agentic workflows
Every advantage traces back to the same trade, and stating them that way keeps expectations honest.
- Coverage of the long tail. The workflow handles inputs nobody wrote a branch for. That is the only reason to accept the rest of the costs.
- Fewer brittle integrations. A tool description survives an API response change that would break a hardcoded parser.
- Cheaper behavior changes. Adjusting what the workflow does means editing a prompt, a tool description, or a policy rule, not rewriting a branch tree.
- Work that reports itself. The decision trace records what was checked and what was ruled out. A scripted job discards both.
The costs are the mirror image, and they are not small. You give up a reproducible run, a cheap debugging loop, and a bounded set of reachable states. Budget for the debugging cost specifically, because reading a decision trace takes longer than reading a stack trace. Weigh both halves of this section before committing, since the costs arrive later than the advantages.
Building agentic workflows in practice
Building agentic workflows is a sequencing problem before it is a coding problem. The order below reflects what breaks first, which is rarely the model.
This is not an agentic workflows tutorial, and it ships no code. Your framework’s quickstart covers installation, the client call, and the first tool definition better than any article can. What a quickstart leaves out is the order to do things in, and that is what follows.
A Sequence That Survives Its First Production Incident
- Write the goal check first. Before the prompt, define how the workflow knows it succeeded. If you cannot write that check, the task is not ready to be automated.
- Give it read-only tools and run it a hundred times. Read the traces. You are looking for the paths you did not predict, and there will be more of them than you expect.
- Add the write path behind a gate. The first write should produce a proposal a person approves, not a change.
- Set stopping conditions before you tune the prompt. Iteration caps, wall-clock limits, and a token budget per run. Prompt tuning without them hides the failure mode.
- Give the workflow its own identity. A dedicated role with a scoped policy, never a shared service account and never a developer’s credentials.
- Trace every step before you scale. Once a workflow runs on a schedule, the trace is the only account you have of what it did.
What Platforms Give You and What They Do Not
GitHub Agentic Workflows (gh-aw) is in public preview, and it compiles repository automation written in Markdown with YAML frontmatter into a standard GitHub Actions workflow. Its defaults are the point: supported agent jobs get read-only GitHub access and sandboxed execution, and configured writes route through validated safe outputs. GitHub adds that these controls stay configurable and need careful review, which is the honest form of any secure-default claim. Amazon Bedrock AgentCore, Google’s Agent Runtime, and the managed service behind LangGraph each supply some mix of runtime, memory, identity, and tracing.
None of them writes your goal check, and none of them knows which resources in your cloud account this workflow should reach. Expect the names to move as well: Google renamed Vertex AI Agent Engine to Agent Runtime, inside a platform now called Gemini Enterprise Agent Platform. Google’s own migration table lists dozens of these changes in one pass. Selecting among these layers is a separate exercise, covered in the AI agent runtime and platform comparison.
Secure Agentic Workflows in the Cloud With Orca
Orca is a cloud security platform, not a general-purpose framework for building the workflows described above. Its own Custom Agents automate security workflows on Orca’s reasoning engine and Unified Data Model, a narrower scope than repository triage or data-quality investigation. The question this article raises sits below both: once a workflow holds a cloud role, what it can reach on a wrong step is a property of your account. The risks specific to agentic AI systems and the controls for the agents themselves are covered separately, as is the model layer underneath them.
Orca answers the account-level question, and the mechanism is the data model underneath the platform. The Unified Data Model “continuously maps every asset, configuration, identity, network path, and data store” across major cloud providers into one model. That turns a workflow role’s blast radius into something you read, and Orca prioritizes “by evaluating risk across severity, asset exposure, blast radius, data sensitivity, and more.” Agentless SideScanning collects the workload side of that context without installing anything on the workload, and the model reaches your team through native integrations and an MCP server.
Discovery matters as much as context here, because agentic workloads appear faster than inventories update. Orca’s AI security posture management discovers AI models, datasets, training pipelines, and inference endpoints across AWS, Azure, and GCP with no agents. Runtime visibility into LLM and MCP activity comes from the Orca Sensor, and the split between AI agents, agentless scanning, and agent-based security is worth settling early. If your team is prototyping agentic workflows this quarter, that AI security inventory is the first thing to get right.
Get a Demo to see the identity and data context behind every workload in your cloud estate.
Frequently Asked Questions About Agentic Workflows
Do Agentic Workflows Require a Framework
No. Anthropic’s guidance is to start with the model API directly, because many patterns take a few lines of code. Frameworks add abstraction layers that can obscure the underlying prompts and responses. Reach for one when you need durable state, retries across process restarts, or a shared deployment target, and adopt it knowing what it does underneath.
How Do You Test an Agentic Workflow Before Production
Build a fixed set of past inputs with known good outcomes and replay them, checking the goal condition instead of the exact output. Run each input several times, because a single pass tells you nothing about a system that can take two paths. Then read a sample of traces by hand. It is slow, and it catches things assertions miss.
What Does an Agentic Workflow Cost to Run
Cost scales with iterations, not with runs, so a single hard input can cost twenty times a typical one. Budget per run and cap it. GitHub’s implementation exposes a per-run credit budget, max-ai-credits, alongside audit tooling that shows which runs consumed the most tokens.
Who Is Accountable When an Agentic Workflow Takes a Wrong Action
The team that granted the credentials. Framing it that way is more useful than debating machine responsibility, because it points at a fixable artifact. If the answer to “what could this role have done instead” is uncomfortable, the permission set is the defect.
Should an Agentic Workflow Ever Pause for a Person
Yes, at the point where an action becomes hard to reverse. Deleting data, spending money, sending external communication, and changing production configuration are the usual four. A checkpoint costs latency and buys back the part of the blast radius that matters most.