By
October 8, 2025
13 mins
AI Observability & Reliability Engineering for Agentic Systems



Key takeaway: Agents fail in production for predictable reasons—non-determinism, tail latency, rate limits, retrieval drift, unsafe tooling, and weak observability. Treat them like distributed systems: define SLIs/SLOs, add evals + tracing, enforce guardrails (allow-listed tools, human-in-the-loop), and pin versions.
Google SRE: SLOs & SLIs · OpenAI: Rate limits & backoff · Google: The Tail at Scale · OWASP: Top 10 for LLM Apps · NIST AI RMF
Why demos lie (and production doesn’t)
Demos are single-threaded, happy-path, and lightly provisioned. Production is adversarial, concurrent, and rate-limited.
Non-determinism myths. Even with
temperature=0, outputs can vary—due to model/server updates, seeds, hardware and beam ties. Providers advise “mostly deterministic” at best; seed helps but doesn’t guarantee bit-for-bit reproducibility.
OpenAI forum: temp=0 clarifications · Databricks: version pinning & regression testsTail latency kills UX. At scale, a tiny fraction of slow requests dominates perceived performance—hedged requests and redundancy are standard cures.
Google Research: Tail at ScaleRate limits are real. Backoff, jitter, and adaptive concurrency are table stakes.
OpenAI: Exponential backoff · OpenAI: RL best practicesSecurity isn’t optional. Prompt injection and indirect injection (via tools/RAG) are the #1 risk; treat untrusted content like code.
OWASP LLM Top 10 · OWASP GenAI 2025 · Azure: Prompt Shields · NIST AI RMFReal incidents happen. A 2025 Replit test saw an AI coding agent delete a production database and then fabricate reports—underscoring the need for permissions, approvals, and auditability.
Fortune reporting · Tom’s Hardware coverage
The Reliability Stack for AI Agents
Think SRE for agents: define SLIs/SLOs → evaluate offline/online → observe every step → control autonomy → mitigate risks.
1) Define SLIs & SLOs for agent workflows
Design for the user journey (not only model tokens).
SRE Book: SLOs · Implementing SLOs
Category | SLI (what to measure) | Example SLO | How to measure |
|---|---|---|---|
Answer quality | Faithfulness (0–1), answer relevancy | ≥0.85 faithfulness p95 over rolling 7d | Ragas, LangSmith/Phoenix evals |
Latency | End-to-end p95; tool-call p95 | p95 < 2.0s | Tracing (Langfuse/LangSmith/Phoenix) |
Retrieval | Context recall@k / precision@k | recall@5 ≥ 0.80 | RAG eval (Qdrant/Pinecone guides) |
Safety | Prompt-injection block rate; unsafe-output rate | ≥99% blocks; <0.1% unsafe | OWASP checks; Content Safety |
Cost | Tokens/request; tool-call count | ≤$X per successful task | Tracing usage + budgeting |
Sources:
Ragas metrics · Qdrant: RAG evaluation · Pinecone: RAG eval · Implementing SLOs
2) Evaluate early and continuously (offline + online)
Offline evals: curated golden sets; regression gates per PR.
Online evals: shadow traffic, LLM-as-judge for faithfulness, human spot-checks.
LangSmith evals · Arize Phoenix evals · Braintrust evals
3) Observe everything (traces, tools, costs)
Log inputs/outputs, tool calls, latency p95/p99, token/cost, retry/backoff, errors.
Langfuse: observability & tracing · LangSmith: traces & evals · Phoenix: OSS observability
4) Control autonomy
Step budgets and max iterations to stop loops; timeouts; HITL approvals for risky tools.
LangChain:max_iterations· CrewAI:max_iter,max_rpm· LangGraph: human-in-the-loop
5) Secure-by-default
Allow-listed tools/APIs, scoped creds, network egress policies, prompt shields, input sanitization.
OWASP LLM Top 10 · Azure: Content Safety · NIST GenAI Profile
Common failure modes → proven fixes
“Same prompt, different answer.”
Why: non-determinism, silent model updates, concurrency.
Fix: set
temperature=0, use seeds when available, pin model versions, run regression evals on every update.
Temp=0 clarifications · Version pinning
Slow or time-outing flows at peak.
Why: tail latency in upstream services; serial tool calls.
Fix: parallelize idempotent steps, hedged requests, timeouts with fallback plans; prewarm caches.
Tail at Scale
Rate-limit storms and 429 cascades.
Fix: client-side exponential backoff + jitter, adaptive concurrency, token budgets per route.
OpenAI: backoff
Prompt injection via RAG or tools.
Why: untrusted content is executed as instructions.
Fix: content scanning, system-prompt hardening, instruction-following validation, deny by default for tool calls; display provenance.
OWASP LLM Top 10 · Azure Prompt Shields
RAG answers go off-script.
Why: bad chunks, drifted embeddings, weak retrievers.
Fix: monitor context recall@k/precision@k, chunk/merge tuning, hybrid (sparse+dense), structured metadata filters; faithfulness scoring.
Qdrant RAG eval · Pinecone guide · Ragas: Faithfulness
Agent loops & tool thrash.
Fix: max iterations, step budgets, circuit breakers (stop on repeated error signatures), HITL approvals for dangerous transitions.
AgentExecutor limits · CrewAI: max_iter
Context window overflow.
Fix: sliding window, summarization checkpoints, and alerts when near capacity.
AWS: Context window overflow · AWS Whitepaper 2025
Small comparison: observability & eval tooling
Tool | Best for | Highlights | Links |
|---|---|---|---|
Langfuse (OSS) | Tracing, cost/latency analytics | OpenTelemetry-native SDK, sessions, scoring | |
LangSmith | Agent traces + offline/online eval | LLM-as-judge, datasets, regressions | |
Arize Phoenix (OSS) | Open-source evals + traces | Python/TS evals, RAG diagnostics | |
Braintrust | Evals at scale + online monitors | Experiments API, online scoring |
Step-by-step rollout: 30 days to production reliability
Days 0–3 — Choose one workflow & write SLOs
Define task success (faithfulness ≥0.85, task completion ≥95%, p95 < 2s, cost ≤ $X).
Pin model/version; restrict tools to an allow-list.
SRE Workbook: Implementing SLOs · Databricks: version pinning
Days 4–10 — Build the “thin slice” with guardrails
Add max iterations/timeouts, retries with exponential backoff, early abort on repeat error patterns.
Instrument tracing for prompts, retrieved context, tool calls, latency, cost.
OpenAI: backoff · Langfuse
Days 11–18 — Evaluation & hardening
Create a 100–500 example golden set; run offline evals (faithfulness, recall@k); fix chunking/hybrid search.
Add prompt-injection shields and input sanitization.
Ragas metrics · OWASP LLM Top 10
Days 19–30 — Pilot with controls
Ship to a small cohort behind a feature flag; run online evals and error-budget alerting on SLOs.
Weekly review of incidents and postmortems; enforce rollbacks if budgets burn fast.
SRE: Error budgets · Phoenix evals · Braintrust: experiments
Appendix: RAG metrics that actually matter
Context recall@k / precision@k for the retriever.
Faithfulness (0–1): answer grounded in retrieved context.
Answer relevancy (0–1): answer addresses the query intent.
Qdrant: RAG evaluation · Ragas metrics · Pinecone: evaluation
Further reading
Risk & security: NIST AI RMF · OWASP GenAI 2025 · Azure Prompt Shields
Performance: Tail at Scale · OpenAI rate limits
Observability & evals: Langfuse · LangSmith · Phoenix · Braintrust
We’re Here to Help
Ready to transform your operations? We're here to help. Contact us today to learn more about our innovative solutions and expert services.
We’re Here to Help
Ready to transform your operations? We're here to help. Contact us today to learn more about our innovative solutions and expert services.
We’re Here to Help
Ready to transform your operations? We're here to help. Contact us today to learn more about our innovative solutions and expert services.
By
October 8, 2025
13 mins
AI Observability & Reliability Engineering for Agentic Systems



Key takeaway: Agents fail in production for predictable reasons—non-determinism, tail latency, rate limits, retrieval drift, unsafe tooling, and weak observability. Treat them like distributed systems: define SLIs/SLOs, add evals + tracing, enforce guardrails (allow-listed tools, human-in-the-loop), and pin versions.
Google SRE: SLOs & SLIs · OpenAI: Rate limits & backoff · Google: The Tail at Scale · OWASP: Top 10 for LLM Apps · NIST AI RMF
Why demos lie (and production doesn’t)
Demos are single-threaded, happy-path, and lightly provisioned. Production is adversarial, concurrent, and rate-limited.
Non-determinism myths. Even with
temperature=0, outputs can vary—due to model/server updates, seeds, hardware and beam ties. Providers advise “mostly deterministic” at best; seed helps but doesn’t guarantee bit-for-bit reproducibility.
OpenAI forum: temp=0 clarifications · Databricks: version pinning & regression testsTail latency kills UX. At scale, a tiny fraction of slow requests dominates perceived performance—hedged requests and redundancy are standard cures.
Google Research: Tail at ScaleRate limits are real. Backoff, jitter, and adaptive concurrency are table stakes.
OpenAI: Exponential backoff · OpenAI: RL best practicesSecurity isn’t optional. Prompt injection and indirect injection (via tools/RAG) are the #1 risk; treat untrusted content like code.
OWASP LLM Top 10 · OWASP GenAI 2025 · Azure: Prompt Shields · NIST AI RMFReal incidents happen. A 2025 Replit test saw an AI coding agent delete a production database and then fabricate reports—underscoring the need for permissions, approvals, and auditability.
Fortune reporting · Tom’s Hardware coverage
The Reliability Stack for AI Agents
Think SRE for agents: define SLIs/SLOs → evaluate offline/online → observe every step → control autonomy → mitigate risks.
1) Define SLIs & SLOs for agent workflows
Design for the user journey (not only model tokens).
SRE Book: SLOs · Implementing SLOs
Category | SLI (what to measure) | Example SLO | How to measure |
|---|---|---|---|
Answer quality | Faithfulness (0–1), answer relevancy | ≥0.85 faithfulness p95 over rolling 7d | Ragas, LangSmith/Phoenix evals |
Latency | End-to-end p95; tool-call p95 | p95 < 2.0s | Tracing (Langfuse/LangSmith/Phoenix) |
Retrieval | Context recall@k / precision@k | recall@5 ≥ 0.80 | RAG eval (Qdrant/Pinecone guides) |
Safety | Prompt-injection block rate; unsafe-output rate | ≥99% blocks; <0.1% unsafe | OWASP checks; Content Safety |
Cost | Tokens/request; tool-call count | ≤$X per successful task | Tracing usage + budgeting |
Sources:
Ragas metrics · Qdrant: RAG evaluation · Pinecone: RAG eval · Implementing SLOs
2) Evaluate early and continuously (offline + online)
Offline evals: curated golden sets; regression gates per PR.
Online evals: shadow traffic, LLM-as-judge for faithfulness, human spot-checks.
LangSmith evals · Arize Phoenix evals · Braintrust evals
3) Observe everything (traces, tools, costs)
Log inputs/outputs, tool calls, latency p95/p99, token/cost, retry/backoff, errors.
Langfuse: observability & tracing · LangSmith: traces & evals · Phoenix: OSS observability
4) Control autonomy
Step budgets and max iterations to stop loops; timeouts; HITL approvals for risky tools.
LangChain:max_iterations· CrewAI:max_iter,max_rpm· LangGraph: human-in-the-loop
5) Secure-by-default
Allow-listed tools/APIs, scoped creds, network egress policies, prompt shields, input sanitization.
OWASP LLM Top 10 · Azure: Content Safety · NIST GenAI Profile
Common failure modes → proven fixes
“Same prompt, different answer.”
Why: non-determinism, silent model updates, concurrency.
Fix: set
temperature=0, use seeds when available, pin model versions, run regression evals on every update.
Temp=0 clarifications · Version pinning
Slow or time-outing flows at peak.
Why: tail latency in upstream services; serial tool calls.
Fix: parallelize idempotent steps, hedged requests, timeouts with fallback plans; prewarm caches.
Tail at Scale
Rate-limit storms and 429 cascades.
Fix: client-side exponential backoff + jitter, adaptive concurrency, token budgets per route.
OpenAI: backoff
Prompt injection via RAG or tools.
Why: untrusted content is executed as instructions.
Fix: content scanning, system-prompt hardening, instruction-following validation, deny by default for tool calls; display provenance.
OWASP LLM Top 10 · Azure Prompt Shields
RAG answers go off-script.
Why: bad chunks, drifted embeddings, weak retrievers.
Fix: monitor context recall@k/precision@k, chunk/merge tuning, hybrid (sparse+dense), structured metadata filters; faithfulness scoring.
Qdrant RAG eval · Pinecone guide · Ragas: Faithfulness
Agent loops & tool thrash.
Fix: max iterations, step budgets, circuit breakers (stop on repeated error signatures), HITL approvals for dangerous transitions.
AgentExecutor limits · CrewAI: max_iter
Context window overflow.
Fix: sliding window, summarization checkpoints, and alerts when near capacity.
AWS: Context window overflow · AWS Whitepaper 2025
Small comparison: observability & eval tooling
Tool | Best for | Highlights | Links |
|---|---|---|---|
Langfuse (OSS) | Tracing, cost/latency analytics | OpenTelemetry-native SDK, sessions, scoring | |
LangSmith | Agent traces + offline/online eval | LLM-as-judge, datasets, regressions | |
Arize Phoenix (OSS) | Open-source evals + traces | Python/TS evals, RAG diagnostics | |
Braintrust | Evals at scale + online monitors | Experiments API, online scoring |
Step-by-step rollout: 30 days to production reliability
Days 0–3 — Choose one workflow & write SLOs
Define task success (faithfulness ≥0.85, task completion ≥95%, p95 < 2s, cost ≤ $X).
Pin model/version; restrict tools to an allow-list.
SRE Workbook: Implementing SLOs · Databricks: version pinning
Days 4–10 — Build the “thin slice” with guardrails
Add max iterations/timeouts, retries with exponential backoff, early abort on repeat error patterns.
Instrument tracing for prompts, retrieved context, tool calls, latency, cost.
OpenAI: backoff · Langfuse
Days 11–18 — Evaluation & hardening
Create a 100–500 example golden set; run offline evals (faithfulness, recall@k); fix chunking/hybrid search.
Add prompt-injection shields and input sanitization.
Ragas metrics · OWASP LLM Top 10
Days 19–30 — Pilot with controls
Ship to a small cohort behind a feature flag; run online evals and error-budget alerting on SLOs.
Weekly review of incidents and postmortems; enforce rollbacks if budgets burn fast.
SRE: Error budgets · Phoenix evals · Braintrust: experiments
Appendix: RAG metrics that actually matter
Context recall@k / precision@k for the retriever.
Faithfulness (0–1): answer grounded in retrieved context.
Answer relevancy (0–1): answer addresses the query intent.
Qdrant: RAG evaluation · Ragas metrics · Pinecone: evaluation
Further reading
Risk & security: NIST AI RMF · OWASP GenAI 2025 · Azure Prompt Shields
Performance: Tail at Scale · OpenAI rate limits
Observability & evals: Langfuse · LangSmith · Phoenix · Braintrust
We’re Here to Help
Ready to transform your operations? We're here to help. Contact us today to learn more about our innovative solutions and expert services.
We’re Here to Help
Ready to transform your operations? We're here to help. Contact us today to learn more about our innovative solutions and expert services.
We’re Here to Help
Ready to transform your operations? We're here to help. Contact us today to learn more about our innovative solutions and expert services.
By
October 8, 2025
13 mins
AI Observability & Reliability Engineering for Agentic Systems



Key takeaway: Agents fail in production for predictable reasons—non-determinism, tail latency, rate limits, retrieval drift, unsafe tooling, and weak observability. Treat them like distributed systems: define SLIs/SLOs, add evals + tracing, enforce guardrails (allow-listed tools, human-in-the-loop), and pin versions.
Google SRE: SLOs & SLIs · OpenAI: Rate limits & backoff · Google: The Tail at Scale · OWASP: Top 10 for LLM Apps · NIST AI RMF
Why demos lie (and production doesn’t)
Demos are single-threaded, happy-path, and lightly provisioned. Production is adversarial, concurrent, and rate-limited.
Non-determinism myths. Even with
temperature=0, outputs can vary—due to model/server updates, seeds, hardware and beam ties. Providers advise “mostly deterministic” at best; seed helps but doesn’t guarantee bit-for-bit reproducibility.
OpenAI forum: temp=0 clarifications · Databricks: version pinning & regression testsTail latency kills UX. At scale, a tiny fraction of slow requests dominates perceived performance—hedged requests and redundancy are standard cures.
Google Research: Tail at ScaleRate limits are real. Backoff, jitter, and adaptive concurrency are table stakes.
OpenAI: Exponential backoff · OpenAI: RL best practicesSecurity isn’t optional. Prompt injection and indirect injection (via tools/RAG) are the #1 risk; treat untrusted content like code.
OWASP LLM Top 10 · OWASP GenAI 2025 · Azure: Prompt Shields · NIST AI RMFReal incidents happen. A 2025 Replit test saw an AI coding agent delete a production database and then fabricate reports—underscoring the need for permissions, approvals, and auditability.
Fortune reporting · Tom’s Hardware coverage
The Reliability Stack for AI Agents
Think SRE for agents: define SLIs/SLOs → evaluate offline/online → observe every step → control autonomy → mitigate risks.
1) Define SLIs & SLOs for agent workflows
Design for the user journey (not only model tokens).
SRE Book: SLOs · Implementing SLOs
Category | SLI (what to measure) | Example SLO | How to measure |
|---|---|---|---|
Answer quality | Faithfulness (0–1), answer relevancy | ≥0.85 faithfulness p95 over rolling 7d | Ragas, LangSmith/Phoenix evals |
Latency | End-to-end p95; tool-call p95 | p95 < 2.0s | Tracing (Langfuse/LangSmith/Phoenix) |
Retrieval | Context recall@k / precision@k | recall@5 ≥ 0.80 | RAG eval (Qdrant/Pinecone guides) |
Safety | Prompt-injection block rate; unsafe-output rate | ≥99% blocks; <0.1% unsafe | OWASP checks; Content Safety |
Cost | Tokens/request; tool-call count | ≤$X per successful task | Tracing usage + budgeting |
Sources:
Ragas metrics · Qdrant: RAG evaluation · Pinecone: RAG eval · Implementing SLOs
2) Evaluate early and continuously (offline + online)
Offline evals: curated golden sets; regression gates per PR.
Online evals: shadow traffic, LLM-as-judge for faithfulness, human spot-checks.
LangSmith evals · Arize Phoenix evals · Braintrust evals
3) Observe everything (traces, tools, costs)
Log inputs/outputs, tool calls, latency p95/p99, token/cost, retry/backoff, errors.
Langfuse: observability & tracing · LangSmith: traces & evals · Phoenix: OSS observability
4) Control autonomy
Step budgets and max iterations to stop loops; timeouts; HITL approvals for risky tools.
LangChain:max_iterations· CrewAI:max_iter,max_rpm· LangGraph: human-in-the-loop
5) Secure-by-default
Allow-listed tools/APIs, scoped creds, network egress policies, prompt shields, input sanitization.
OWASP LLM Top 10 · Azure: Content Safety · NIST GenAI Profile
Common failure modes → proven fixes
“Same prompt, different answer.”
Why: non-determinism, silent model updates, concurrency.
Fix: set
temperature=0, use seeds when available, pin model versions, run regression evals on every update.
Temp=0 clarifications · Version pinning
Slow or time-outing flows at peak.
Why: tail latency in upstream services; serial tool calls.
Fix: parallelize idempotent steps, hedged requests, timeouts with fallback plans; prewarm caches.
Tail at Scale
Rate-limit storms and 429 cascades.
Fix: client-side exponential backoff + jitter, adaptive concurrency, token budgets per route.
OpenAI: backoff
Prompt injection via RAG or tools.
Why: untrusted content is executed as instructions.
Fix: content scanning, system-prompt hardening, instruction-following validation, deny by default for tool calls; display provenance.
OWASP LLM Top 10 · Azure Prompt Shields
RAG answers go off-script.
Why: bad chunks, drifted embeddings, weak retrievers.
Fix: monitor context recall@k/precision@k, chunk/merge tuning, hybrid (sparse+dense), structured metadata filters; faithfulness scoring.
Qdrant RAG eval · Pinecone guide · Ragas: Faithfulness
Agent loops & tool thrash.
Fix: max iterations, step budgets, circuit breakers (stop on repeated error signatures), HITL approvals for dangerous transitions.
AgentExecutor limits · CrewAI: max_iter
Context window overflow.
Fix: sliding window, summarization checkpoints, and alerts when near capacity.
AWS: Context window overflow · AWS Whitepaper 2025
Small comparison: observability & eval tooling
Tool | Best for | Highlights | Links |
|---|---|---|---|
Langfuse (OSS) | Tracing, cost/latency analytics | OpenTelemetry-native SDK, sessions, scoring | |
LangSmith | Agent traces + offline/online eval | LLM-as-judge, datasets, regressions | |
Arize Phoenix (OSS) | Open-source evals + traces | Python/TS evals, RAG diagnostics | |
Braintrust | Evals at scale + online monitors | Experiments API, online scoring |
Step-by-step rollout: 30 days to production reliability
Days 0–3 — Choose one workflow & write SLOs
Define task success (faithfulness ≥0.85, task completion ≥95%, p95 < 2s, cost ≤ $X).
Pin model/version; restrict tools to an allow-list.
SRE Workbook: Implementing SLOs · Databricks: version pinning
Days 4–10 — Build the “thin slice” with guardrails
Add max iterations/timeouts, retries with exponential backoff, early abort on repeat error patterns.
Instrument tracing for prompts, retrieved context, tool calls, latency, cost.
OpenAI: backoff · Langfuse
Days 11–18 — Evaluation & hardening
Create a 100–500 example golden set; run offline evals (faithfulness, recall@k); fix chunking/hybrid search.
Add prompt-injection shields and input sanitization.
Ragas metrics · OWASP LLM Top 10
Days 19–30 — Pilot with controls
Ship to a small cohort behind a feature flag; run online evals and error-budget alerting on SLOs.
Weekly review of incidents and postmortems; enforce rollbacks if budgets burn fast.
SRE: Error budgets · Phoenix evals · Braintrust: experiments
Appendix: RAG metrics that actually matter
Context recall@k / precision@k for the retriever.
Faithfulness (0–1): answer grounded in retrieved context.
Answer relevancy (0–1): answer addresses the query intent.
Qdrant: RAG evaluation · Ragas metrics · Pinecone: evaluation
Further reading
Risk & security: NIST AI RMF · OWASP GenAI 2025 · Azure Prompt Shields
Performance: Tail at Scale · OpenAI rate limits
Observability & evals: Langfuse · LangSmith · Phoenix · Braintrust
We’re Here to Help
Ready to transform your operations? We're here to help. Contact us today to learn more about our innovative solutions and expert services.
We’re Here to Help
Ready to transform your operations? We're here to help. Contact us today to learn more about our innovative solutions and expert services.
We’re Here to Help
Ready to transform your operations? We're here to help. Contact us today to learn more about our innovative solutions and expert services.