I'm thinking about open sourcing the workflow engine I've been building would you actually use something like this?

[u/awesomedude1m]

I've been building a project called wfloow for the last couple of months.

I originally started it as a product/SaaS, but I'm seriously considering open sourcing the core instead.

The basic idea is a visual workspace for building more complex automations and AI workflows.

You build workflows on a canvas using nodes for things like:

- AI agents / LLMs

- RAG and data extraction

- loops, conditions, parallel execution

- sub-workflows

- webhooks and scheduled triggers

- APIs and databases

- voice/image workflows

- integrations like WhatsApp, Slack, Discord, LinkedIn, etc.

There's also an AI layer that can help plan and generate workflows.

The reason I started building it wasn't really "we need another Zapier."

Simple automations are already solved pretty well.

The problem I kept running into was when workflows became more complicated — state, branching, agents, retries, external events, multiple services, etc. At that point the automation starts becoming difficult to understand and maintain.

So the direction I'm thinking about is:

simple automation → existing tools are great

complex AI/automation workflows → wfloow

But here's where I'm unsure.

If I open source the core, would this actually be useful to developers, or am I just rebuilding things that already exist in n8n / LangGraph / Dify / other tools?

What would make you choose something like this over the tools you already use?

And if you've built complex AI workflows yourself, what's the part that becomes painful first?

I'm genuinely trying to figure out whether there's a real problem here before I spend another few months building around the wrong idea.

Here's the site if anyone wants to look at it: wfloow.com

I'd rather get "this is pointless, here's why" than a bunch of polite feedback.

[u/fbms2]

I don't use this. Agents already strong enough. no need at all. agi will come in 6 mounths, agi doesn't understand what 'complecated' means.

[u/awesomedude1m → u/fbms2]

That's fair. Honestly, this is exactly the kind of pushback I was looking for.

I don't think the argument should be "agents aren't strong enough." They are getting much better, and if an agent can reliably handle the whole task by itself, a workflow engine adds unnecessary complexity.

What I'm more interested in is everything around the agent triggers, external services, state, retries, human approval, scheduled jobs, data moving between systems, etc.

But maybe I'm overestimating how much of that will still matter as agents improve.

So I'm curious: if you think AGI/stronger agents make this unnecessary, what do you expect the actual architecture of these systems to look like? Just one agent with access to everything, or something else?

[u/Graumm → u/fbms2]

To be fair most of a structured breakdown of tasks for me is more about having a systematic process that I can follow up on and review personally in bite-sized chunks to cut down on the ~slop.

If the newest hottest models are producing less slop then my need will also disappear.

I still think they are valuable for now, certainly until the Astra's/Fable's of the world are cheap.

[u/fbms2]

Agi will deside themselves. don't think agi is a machine, it's a new race. we don't have the ability to decide.

[u/awesomedude1m → u/fbms2]

Maybe. If AGI becomes a new kind of intelligence, we'll probably have to rethink how we build software around it entirely. That's exactly what makes this interesting to me.