Skip to main content

Command Palette

Search for a command to run...

AI Agents vs Workflows: what's the difference?

Published
4 min read
AI Agents vs Workflows: what's the difference?
L
Technical Architect and Developer with more than 10 years of experience, specializing in scalable and efficient digital products powered by cloud technologies.

Introduction

My work as a software engineer and technical architect is centered around building and delivering software doing things like designing systems, collaborating with dev teams and helping move solutions from idea to implementation to operation. It's a highly technical role, but not necessarily at the frontier or state of the art AI

Still, over the past months I've been paying attention to what's happening in the AI space. AI agents have caught my attention and I've been studying and experimenting the topic on my own

To me, software engineering has always been about solving problems with tech, which means understanding the what, why and how. While learning about AI agents, I kept running into one question: what actually is an agent and how is it different than an AI workflow? In this blog post I go over this distinction in a practical way

What is an AI workflow?

A workflow can be defined as a series of steps needed to complete a task. Adding "AI" to it generally just means an LLM is involved in at least one of those steps. A good and easy to understand example would be a support system ticket where tickets can be created and an AI workflow can summarize the ticket, check relevant documentation and draft a response.

Flowchart of an AI workflow for support handling. The diagram shows a top-to-bottom linear sequence: “Support Ticket Arrives,” “LLM Summarizes Ticket,” “Search Docs / Knowledge base,” “LLM Drafts Response,” “(Optional) Human Review,” and “Final Output.” Arrows connect each step, emphasizing a fixed, predefined workflow.

High-level use case diagram for "support ticket" AI workflow sample. Own creation

The important part here is that the sequence is fixed. The model adds intelligence/reasoning inside the steps, but it's not free to decide on the whole process

What is an AI Agent?

An AI agent goes one step further than a workflow. Instead of following a fixed sequence of steps, it is given a goal and some ability (tools) to decide what actions to take.

In our previous example of the support ticket workflow, with an AI agent, the agent gets into a feedback loop where the LLM can use tools, search docs or ask user for more info. Each internal loop step inside the agent also checks if current "reasoning" is enough to resolve or if need to continue with the agentic loop

Flowchart of an AI agent handling a support request. The process starts with “Support Ticket Arrives,” then “Agent receives goal,” followed by “Decide next action.” From there, the agent can choose among three actions: “Ask human,” “Call internal tool,” or “Search docs / knowledge base.” The results are then evaluated in “Evaluate findings,” followed by a decision point labeled “Enough to resolve?” If no, the flow loops back to “Decide next action.” If yes, it proceeds to “Final Output.” The diagram emphasizes dynamic decision-making and iteration rather than a fixed linear path.

High-level use case diagram for "support ticket" using an AI agent. Own creation

The important difference here is that the agent can choose actions dynamically, like using a tool, inspecting results, and loop to refine the output and complete the task. That flexibility is what makes the agents powerful and interesting, but also significantly more complex than workflows

Why people confuse them?

It's easy to confuse workflows and agents because both look similar on the surface. Both use LLMs, tools, APIs and so on.

A workflow may already look smart enough to feel like an agent. Also, most agents are not fully autonomous either as they require a human input to start.

So the distinction is not really about whether AI is involved, It is more about how much freedom an AI system has to decide next step

  • Workflows: Has a predefined path. The system is mostly developer-controlled

  • Agent: Has more of a dynamic path towards a goal. The system is More system-controlled

Conclusion

In software engineering, we usually try to use the right tool for the right job. I think the same concept applies well here. Not every AI-powered system needs to be an agent.

An AI workflow is a good choice when the path is known in advance and you want something easier to understand, test and control.

An AI Agent makes more sense when the system needs freedom to decide what to do in order to reach a goal or objective

E

the distinction i keep coming back to: workflows let you predict failure modes ahead of time, agents shift that to runtime. the tradeoff isnt flexibility vs rigor - its "we know what could break" vs "we learn what breaks in production."

for my nuxt 3 + go-zero stack i ended up hybridizing: agents for codegen/investigation, deterministic workflows for deploy/migration. the agent can propose the migration but a scripted workflow runs it. treats the agent as a senior engineer who still has to submit a PR.

collecting these hybrid patterns at tokrepo.com/en across claude code / cursor / zed. the agent-vs-workflow framing is often false when you can compose them.

L

Hey Ethan. Thanks for commenting!

I like the thought of "predictable failure upfront" vs "discovering failure at runtime" when comparing workflows and agents. A hybrid approach also sounds like it makes a lot of sense depending on the use case.

My blog post was aimed more towards the "let's put agents everywhere" mindset, when I think a lot of systems may be needing a well thought ai workflow instead

AI

Part 1 of 1

A collection of articles on AI engineering, covering machine learning, LLMs, AI workflows, agents, and practical system design.