Building complex, multi-step AI processes directly with code generators creates a black box that is difficult to debug. Instead, prototype and validate the workflow step-by-step using a visual tool like N8N first. This isolates failure points and makes the entire system more manageable.

Treating AI evaluation like a final exam is a mistake. For critical enterprise systems, evaluations should be embedded at every step of an agent's workflow (e.g., after planning, before action). This is akin to unit testing in classic software development and is essential for building trustworthy, production-ready agents.

Many AI tools expose the model's reasoning before generating an answer. Reading this internal monologue is a powerful debugging technique. It reveals how the AI is interpreting your instructions, allowing you to quickly identify misunderstandings and improve the clarity of your prompts for better results.

The common mistake in building AI evals is jumping straight to writing automated tests. The correct first step is a manual process called "error analysis" or "open coding," where a product expert reviews real user interaction logs to understand what's actually going wrong. This grounds your entire evaluation process in reality.

When a prompt yields poor results, use a meta-prompting technique. Feed the failing prompt back to the AI, describe the incorrect output, specify the desired outcome, and explicitly grant it permission to rewrite, add, or delete. The AI will then debug and improve its own instructions.

There's a tension in agent design: should you prune failures from the message history? Pruning prevents a "poisoned" context where hallucinations persist, but keeping failures allows the agent to see the error and correct its approach. For tool call errors, the speaker prefers keeping them in.

When an agent fails, treat it like an intern. Scrutinize its log of actions to find the specific step where it went wrong (e.g., used the wrong link), then provide a targeted correction. This is far more effective than giving a generic, frustrated re-prompt.

When an AI model makes the same undesirable output two or three times, treat it as a signal. Create a custom rule or prompt instruction that explicitly codifies the desired behavior. This trains the AI to avoid that specific mistake in the future, improving consistency over time.

Borrowing from classic management theory, the most effective way to use AI agents is to fix problems at the earliest 'lowest value stage'. This means rigorously reviewing the agent's proposed plan *before* it writes any code, preventing costly rework later on.