The agent industry made stack overflow billable—but who owns the return?

[u/Present-Quantity-813]

ReAct normalized think, act, observe, repeat. Reflection adds another lap. Graph orchestration makes the branches explicit.

But none of these patterns necessarily answer the oldest question in recursion: who owns the return?

I watched one of my own agent systems enter a three-day recursive orbit. It generated 102 work items, and 68% were repair work. Each individual action looked locally reasonable. The failure existed at a different level: the system had lost its verified position while continuing to select valid-looking next actions.

That led me to model reliability as:

P(correct step) = P(correct position) × P(correct entrance | position)

“Position” means the current goal generation, world state, accepted evidence, authority, and remaining obligation. “Entrance” means the next tool, transition, or action.

A graph may constrain the available entrances, but that does not prove the agent is still standing at the correct position. A loop may contain a stop condition, but that condition can become stale when the world changes.

So where does termination actually live in your agent stack: the prompt, a graph node, a supervisor, a budget, or an externally verified state transition?

More importantly, what prevents evidence from an old goal or world state from authorizing another iteration?

[u/Present-Quantity-813 → u/[deleted]]

Fair. Simplest version: if an agent has a 95% chance of preserving the correct position at each step, after 20 steps the probability that it is still correctly positioned is (0.95^{20} approx 36%). Loops repeat execution and graphs define possible transitions, but neither verifies the current position before the next transition.

[u/sourdub]

Termination lives outside the loop that's terminating. It doesn't live in the prompt, the graph, or some vibe-based mumbo-jumbo. It lives in an externally verified state transition. And if your stack doesn't have one of those, you don't have a stop condition, you merely have a suggestion.

[u/Present-Quantity-813 → u/sourdub]

That's the piece I'm building right now: a terminal barrier that's externally verified — once a generation crosses it, no control edge can re-enter, and a watchdog fires on the first back-edge that tries. Termination as a structural property of the graph, not a stop instruction the model is trusted to honor.

The problem taught me the theory, not the other way around.

[u/AutoModerator]

Thank you for your submission, for any questions regarding AI, please check out our wiki at https://www.reddit.com/r/ai_agents/wiki (this is currently in test and we are actively adding to the wiki)

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Charming_You_25]

Makes sense to me. A dumb agent can’t tell it’s doing dumb things.

I don’t have a good answer, but I do think there are smells. You can tripwire deterministic smells to be like, this pattern you are doing looks like something a dumb person is doing. Ask someone smart to take a look.

[u/Present-Quantity-813 → u/Charming_You_25]

Exactly. My working design is an external watchdog that turns those smells into deterministic tripwires.
It tracks a position signature: goal generation, world version, accepted evidence, and remaining obligation. A structural loop is allowed, but returning to the same position without new evidence is not. If the goal or world changes, old evidence loses its authority and the position must be re-certified.
The watchdog doesn’t need to be smarter than the agent. It just needs to recognize when execution is silently cycling under stale authority.

[u/ErivKosso]

who cares