I felt being home, literally. I teach with the house metaphor (each room is a shape) and my tools(connectors) are house utilities.
The loop artifact does not exist so much in the business world. It’s very much a developer pattern. The only one I can see that applies is QA for social media content (scoring content). Usually most daily jobs are single pass, but the “harness” principles still holds 😉
The house metaphor is good, rooms as shapes and connectors as utilities. Stealing that for teaching.
On loops in business I'd push back a bit. Most jobs look single pass because a human closes the loop invisibly. Draft goes to the boss, boss sends it back, you redo. That's a loop, it just runs on people. Approval chains, review cycles, reconciling numbers until they match, all loops.
The agent version needs one thing: a check the machine can run on its own. Your content scoring example is exactly that. Same pattern works for outbound emails scored against ICP fit, invoices checked against purchase orders, reports checked against source data. Wherever the check exists, the loop exists. Where it doesn't, you're right, single pass plus a human eyeball is the honest answer.
I felt being home, literally. I teach with the house metaphor (each room is a shape) and my tools(connectors) are house utilities.
The loop artifact does not exist so much in the business world. It’s very much a developer pattern. The only one I can see that applies is QA for social media content (scoring content). Usually most daily jobs are single pass, but the “harness” principles still holds 😉
The house metaphor is good, rooms as shapes and connectors as utilities. Stealing that for teaching.
On loops in business I'd push back a bit. Most jobs look single pass because a human closes the loop invisibly. Draft goes to the boss, boss sends it back, you redo. That's a loop, it just runs on people. Approval chains, review cycles, reconciling numbers until they match, all loops.
The agent version needs one thing: a check the machine can run on its own. Your content scoring example is exactly that. Same pattern works for outbound emails scored against ICP fit, invoices checked against purchase orders, reports checked against source data. Wherever the check exists, the loop exists. Where it doesn't, you're right, single pass plus a human eyeball is the honest answer.
Agree for team workflows. I’m focusing on workflows owned by an individual. As soon as you cross this boundary it becomes complicated IMHO.
Yes. One owner stays simple. Two owners is a different problem.
For one person the loop is still there. You write, you check, you redo. The harness is just that check written down so it runs without you.
A team needs handoffs and approval. I am not writing that harness.