How durable workflows are solving the reliability crisis in production AI systems

8 min readJust now

–

Your AI agent just lost three hours of work because a cloud function timed out.

It happens constantly in production AI systems, and it’s not because your code is bad — it’s because you’re building intelligent, long-running agents on infrastructure designed for tasks that finish in 30 seconds.

While everyone obsesses over model performance, the real bottleneck in production AI is reliability. Workflows crash and lose context. Agents forget mid-task. Debugging becomes impossible. Your team spends more time fixing orchestration than on improving the AI.

This article explores why traditional orchestration breaks down with agentic AI, what that fragility actually costs you, and how durable workflows are emerging as the architecture pattern that makes AI systems production-ready.

Press enter or click to view image in full size

I watched a demo fail spectacularly last month. A team had built this impressive AI agent that could research competitors, compile reports, and schedule follow-ups. During the demo, right in the middle of scraping data from the third website, their cloud function timed out. When it restarted? The agent had completely forgotten everything — no memory of which URLs it had visited, what data it collected, nothing.

Their CEO’s face said it all.

This kind of thing happens way more often than people admit. And honestly, it’s not really anyone’s fault — we’re just using tools that weren’t designed for what we’re trying to do.

Here’s the thing: as AI moves from “cool demos” to actual production systems that real people depend on, reliability has become the make-or-break factor. Agentic AI systems, where agents actually plan and make decisions across multiple tools, need workflows that can survive failures, remember context for hours or even days, and recover when (not if) things break.

Most of the orchestration tools we’re using today? They can’t do that, which brings us to durable workflows — a pattern that’s changing how we think about building reliable AI systems.

Why Traditional Workflows Keep Breaking

Look, most teams (including mine, at one point) are running AI systems on a sketchy stack of scripts, message queues, and cloud functions held together with duct tape and prayers.

Here’s what keeps going wrong:

Everything is ephemeral

Process crashes? VM restarts? Network hiccup? Your entire workflow explodes. All that progress? Gone. The context your agent built up? Vanished. You’re back to square one, except now you’re not even sure where square one was.

Nothing runs long enough

Cloud functions assume your job finishes in minutes, maybe seconds. But real agentic workflows need time. An AI monitoring market conditions, waiting for user approval, then executing based on that input? That’s hours, sometimes days. Good luck keeping a Lambda function alive that long.

Error handling is a nightmare you build yourself

Every single API call needs retry logic. Every timeout needs handling. Every failure needs idempotency checks. So you write it. And then you write it again for the next service. And then someone else writes a slightly different version. It’s tedious, error-prone, and honestly kind of soul-crushing.

Debugging is basically impossible

Something broke at 3 AM. Was it step 7 or step 12? What input caused it? What state was the agent in? You’re digging through logs across five different services, trying to reconstruct a timeline like you’re solving a crime.

Static graphs don’t work for dynamic agents

A lot of workflow tools want you to define everything upfront in a DAG. But agents don’t work that way. They make decisions on the fly, branch based on what they learn, and loop when they need to. You can’t predict that ahead of time.

The real problem? These tools were built for predictable batch jobs that run for two minutes and either succeed or fail. Not for intelligent systems that need to think, adapt, and remember things over days or weeks.

What Happens When Workflows Aren’t Reliable

Unreliable orchestration doesn’t just annoy your engineers (though it definitely does that). It breaks everything downstream.

Users lose trust fast. An AI assistant that forgets what you were talking about mid-conversation or gets stuck in a loop? People stop using it. They tell their friends not to use it. Trust is hard to build and really easy to destroy.

Your API bills explode. Failed workflows burn through compute and API credits on duplicate runs or incomplete attempts. When you’re paying per GPT-4 call, those failures add up to real money, fast.

Your team stops innovating. Engineers end up spending more time fixing orchestration bugs than actually improving the AI. Instead of tuning prompts or adding features, they’re debugging why the retry logic failed at 4 AM.

Your database gets weird. Half-completed workflows leave partial records, dangling references, and state that doesn’t quite make sense. Cleaning that up manually is tedious and risky.

Scaling becomes impossible. Add more agents, and the complexity explodes. Now you’re managing distributed state across dozens of workflows, each with its own failure modes and retry logic. It’s a mess that grows exponentially.

Without reliable workflows, even the smartest AI becomes fragile under real-world pressure. And production systems don’t forgive fragility.

What If Workflows Could Just… Not Break?

Here’s a question that changed how I think about this: what if workflows could survive failures automatically, without any custom code?

That’s the core insight behind durable execution. Instead of adding reliability as an afterthought (retry logic here, state management there), you make it fundamental to how the code runs.

Durable workflow engines handle all the messy infrastructure stuff so you can focus on what your agent actually needs to do.

Press enter or click to view image in full size

Durable Workflows with queues, timers, retry and state

What makes them work

Everything gets saved. Every step, every decision, every piece of state goes into durable storage as it happens. Service crashes? No problem. The system picks up exactly where it left off — no context lost.

Replay just works. Workflows can replay their entire history to reconstruct the state after failures. It’s deterministic, which means you get the same result every time. This isn’t magic — it’s just good engineering.

Retries are built in. You declare what you want: “retry this three times with exponential backoff.” The platform handles it. No custom code, no weird edge cases, no forgetting to handle that one error type.

Side effects are safe. API calls, database writes, emails — the system tracks them to prevent duplicates. You don’t accidentally charge someone twice or send the same email three times because a retry fired.

Workflows can run forever. Hours, days, weeks — doesn’t matter. They survive code deployments and infrastructure changes. Version control keeps old workflows compatible with new code.

Debugging actually works. You can see the full history of any workflow — every input, every state transition, every decision. When something breaks, you know exactly what happened.

Basically, durable execution takes all the reliability problems and makes them the platform’s job instead of yours. A Real Example That Makes This Concrete

Let’s say you’re building an AI sales agent. It needs to:

1. Watch your CRM for high-value leads
2. Research each company (scrape their site, read recent news)
3. Generate a personalized email
4. Wait for your sales rep to approve or edit it
5. Send it via SendGrid
6. Set up follow-up reminders based on whether they engage

Without durable execution, this is fragile as hell. Scraping times out? Lost progress. Approval takes three days? Your cloud function died hours ago. SendGrid returns an error? Hope your idempotency logic is perfect or you’re sending duplicates.

With durable execution, each step is checkpointed automatically. The agent waits three days for approval without burning any resources. API failures trigger smart retries. You can see exactly which leads got processed, what emails went out, and why anything failed.

The workflow just works. It’s resilient by design, not because someone wrote 500 lines of error handling code. The Platforms Making This Possible

A few platforms are leading the charge here:

Temporal is the most mature option. You write workflows in normal code — TypeScript, Python, Go, whatever — and it handles persistence, retries, versioning, all of it. Lots of teams use it for agentic systems and complex AI pipelines. The observability tools are excellent too.

DBOS takes a database-first approach to durability. If you need rock-solid consistency guarantees and your workflow state maps well to database concepts, it’s worth looking at.

Restate optimizes specifically for LLM and tool interactions. It’s designed around the patterns AI agents actually use, with good support for event-driven workflows.

Inngest makes event-driven orchestration really simple. If you’re dealing with fan-out patterns or lots of parallel agents, the concurrency controls are helpful. Easy to get started with.

Dapr Workflow extends the Dapr microservices framework. If you’re already in that ecosystem, it’s a natural fit for adding durable workflows.

Which should you pick? For complex agentic systems, I’d start with Temporal — it’s mature, well-documented, and has a good community. For simpler event-driven stuff, Inngest is faster to get going. DBOS and Restate are worth exploring if you have specific needs around databases or LLM optimization.

The Trade-offs (Because Nothing is Free)

Look, durable workflows aren’t magic. There are costs:

Learning curve. These platforms introduce concepts you probably haven’t dealt with before — deterministic execution, event sourcing and replay semantics. Your team needs time to learn. Budget for it.

Some latency overhead. A Persisting state adds a few milliseconds per step. For most applications, that’s fine. For ultra-low-latency use cases, you’ll need to think carefully about architecture.

More infrastructure. You’re adding another system to deploy and monitor. Managed services help, but it’s still one more thing.

Ongoing costs. Storage for workflow history and compute for workers adds up. Though honestly, this is usually cheaper than the wasted API calls and engineer time you’re spending now.

For most production AI systems, these trade-offs are worth it. Building your own state management and retry infrastructure from scratch? That’s way more expensive, and you’ll get it wrong a bunch of times before you get it right.

What You Should Actually Do

As AI systems grow from prototypes to real infrastructure, reliability can’t be something you bolt on later when things start breaking at scale.

Agentic workflows are persistent reasoning processes. They span time, they maintain context, they have intent. They need infrastructure that can handle that complexity.

If you’re building agentic AI right now:

First, take a hard look at your current setup. Are you writing the same retry logic over and over? Losing state when things crash? Spending hours debugging failures? Those are signs you need this.

Second, start small. Pick one workflow that matters and migrate it to a durable platform. Measure what happens to reliability and how much faster your team moves.

Third, if you’re starting something new, build on durable foundations from day one. Don’t wait until reliability problems force a painful rewrite six months in.

Durable workflows give AI systems what they need to run continuously, recover gracefully, and deliver predictable results even when infrastructure is unpredictable.

The next wave of AI infrastructure won’t just make models smarter. It’ll make them reliable enough that people actually trust them.

And that’s the difference between a cool demo and something that changes how work gets done.