DEV.to

LLMs Are CPUs, Agents Are Processes — The Real Architecture of Agentic AI

· 3분 · 원문 보기 → · 0
#ai#agenticai#llm#architecture

Most AI production failures between 2024 and 2026 weren’t caused by model quality.

Gartner predicts that 40% of enterprise applications will embed AI agents by late 2026,
up from less than 5% in 2025 — an eightfold jump.

The market is projected to surge from $7.8 billion to over $52 billion by 2030.
Multi-agent system inquiries spiked 1,445% from Q1 2024 to Q2 2025.

The numbers say “agents are the future.”
But teams actually shipping agents to production tell a different story:

the demo works,
production breaks,
and swapping models doesn’t fix it.

The problem isn’t the model.
It’s the system wrapping the model.

What “Agent” Actually Means

An agent is an LLM wrapped in a loop that can:

  • observe state,
  • call tools,
  • record results,
  • and decide when it’s done.

A regular LLM call is one-shot:
prompt in, response out, done.

An agent is iterative:
goal in, decision loop starts, tool calls happen, results return, decisions continue.

A useful analogy:

  • LLMs are CPUs
  • Agents are processes
  • Agentic frameworks are operating systems

The LLM is just the compute engine.
System architecture creates the agent.

def run_agent(user_query: str):
    messages = [system_prompt, tools_definition, user_query]

    while True:  # this loop IS the agent
        response = llm.call(messages)  # LLM decides only

        if response.has_action():
            tool_name, params = parse_action(response)
            result = execute_tool(tool_name, params)  # code executes
            messages.append(response)
            messages.append(result)

        elif response.has_answer():
            return response.answer
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

Critical point:
the orchestrator is code, not an LLM.

ReAct: The Agent’s Heartbeat

The foundational pattern is ReAct (Reason + Act).

The LLM cycles through:
Thought → Action → Observation.

Loop 1:
LLM Thought: I need Gangnam apartment data.
LLM Action: search_real_estate_api("Gangnam", "34pyeong")
Orchestrator executes tool.
Tool result returns.

Loop 2:
LLM Thought: I can answer now.
LLM Answer: summarized market output.
Orchestrator exits and returns result.
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

The LLM does not execute tools directly.
It selects tools.
The system executes them.

Seven Design Patterns — None Are Mandatory

Common patterns:

  • ReAct
  • Reflection
  • Planning
  • Tool Use
  • Multi-Agent Collaboration
  • Sequential Workflows
  • Human-in-the-Loop

Only four are truly essential:
LLM, loop, tools, termination condition.
Everything else is optional composition based on complexity.

Reflection: Evaluating Your Own Output

Reflection is a separate validation pass.

response_1 = llm.call("Calculate acquisition tax. Price: $1.15M, first home")
review = llm.call(f"Check this for errors:\n{response_1}")
final = llm.call(f"Original: {response_1}\nFeedback: {review}\nRevise.")
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

Reflection is about risk reduction,
not “making the model smarter.”

Planning: Map the Route Before Driving

Planning is also an LLM call,
but execution is explicitly deferred.

plan = llm.call("""
Request: Full cost analysis for buying an apartment in Gangnam.
Create step-by-step JSON plan. Do not execute.
""")

for step in plan:
    execute_step(step)
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

Without planning, complex tasks drift.
Long-running agents should have explicit plan objects.

Tool Use: If Accuracy Matters, Don’t Let the LLM Compute It

This is the key architectural decision.

# Wrong: LLM computes directly
"Acquisition tax for $1.15M is ..."  # high hallucination risk

# Right: LLM selects deterministic function
LLM: "Call calculate_tax"
Orchestrator: calculate_tax(price=1_150_000, homes=1)
Result: 20_700
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

LLMs choose actions.
Deterministic code computes truth.

Multi-Agent: Why Split the Same LLM into Specialists?

One agent with 30 tools increases prompt length and tool-selection error.
Specialization improves reliability.

Orchestrator
├── Research Agent (search_api)
├── Calculator Agent (tax_calc, fee_calc)
├── Writer Agent (text generation)
└── QA Agent (validation)
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

Shorter, focused contexts produce better outputs.

Why Agents Break in Production

The prototype-to-production gap is architecture, not prompting.

Three production principles:

  1. Orchestration is infrastructure
  2. State must be external
  3. Execution must be zero-trust

If reasoning, state, tool invocation, and execution are fused in one loop,
it might pass a hackathon,
but it fails under scale, recovery, and compliance pressure.

Don’t Fall for “Agent Washing”

A practical test for real agents:

  • Does the LLM decide inside a loop?
  • Does it call tools?
  • Does it decide when to stop?
  • Does it adapt strategy after failure?

If any of these are missing,
you likely have scripted automation, not an agent.

Prompt engineering alone is no longer enough.
In 2026, architecture around the LLM is the competitive edge.

The core of an agent isn’t a smarter model — it’s a better loop.

댓글 0

0 / 1000