By now, you're likely familiar with workflow automation using tools like Albato—setting up triggers & actions to handle predictable, step-by-step scenarios.
With powerful LLMS and agentic AI on the rise, you're probably itching to build a mastermind, Skynet-like AI that can take over all your (or your customers’) complex, time-consuming processes.
In this article, we'll share some insights on how to build Agentic AI more effectively and control their performance with automation flows.
Automations, AI flows, AI agents — The difference
Let’s start with the basics. The image below shows the difference between automation flows, AI automation flows, and agentic AI.
However, the new era of agentic AI also comes with a new dilemma: Can you trust AI crews to fully manage complex end-to-end workflows? When should you use a fully autonomous AI crew, a pre-defined automation flow, or a hybrid?
Building agentic AI: Risk vs. precision
Over-injecting AI can lead to bad operational decisions, messed-up data, and even lost customers.
Long story short, you need to match the right AI capability to the right problem. It all boils down to two key questions: How risky is the job? And how precise does the result need to be?
This chart helps you evaluate your task: one axis asks how risky failure would be, the other how precise the results need to be.
Risk means things like:
- Could a mistake cost real money (e.g, duplicate refunds, over-ordering inventory, or billing the wrong customer)?
- Could it damage your brand’s reputation?
- Could it negatively affect your customers' experience or trust?
- Are there compliance or legal consequences if it goes wrong?
Precision is all about:
- Does the outcome need to be spot-on accurate?
- Do you need results in a very specific, structured format (like a table or a particular file type)?
- Is it critical to always get the same output for the same input?
- How much control do you need over each step?
Understanding where your process falls on this "Risk-Precision Matrix" helps you pick the right AI setup.
Practical scenarios of building agentic AI
Now let’s dive into two edge scenarios—one where tasks are low-risk & low precision, and the other where they’re high-risk & high precision.
Scenario 1: Low risk, low precision
Task definition:
These are safe tasks where mistakes don’t lead to monetary losses, damage your brand, or frustrate customers. The output doesn’t need to be perfect or consistent—some variation is fine, even welcome. Ideal for creative or exploratory work where flexibility matters more than accuracy.
Use case: Automatically generate and write blog posts for marketing automation SaaS.
AI approach: AI crew with several AI agents.
AI workflow example:
- Agent 1 (Audience Researcher) identifies 2-3 common questions from your target audience.
- It passes them to Agent 2 (Idea Generator), who generates a few ideas for blog articles answering those questions.
- Agent 3 (Copywriter) then writes the actual blog posts based on those ideas.
Scenario 2: High risk, high precision
Task definition:
These are the heavyweight jobs—multiple moving parts, tight dependencies, and zero tolerance for mistakes. Outputs must be structured, consistent, and accurate. An error could mean real financial losses, reputational damage, and frustrated—maybe even lost—customers.
Use case: Refund Handling Crew for Enterprise SaaS
Context: In high-value B2B SaaS (e.g., enterprise Delivery & Logistics platforms), refund decisions involve serious monetary and reputational risk. One mistake can mean thousands lost—or a frustrated customer churning and damaging your brand. That’s why high precision, tight orchestration, and human validation are critical.
AI approach: Each AI agent handles a specific task, while a Master Flow orchestrates the entire process. To avoid errors, human-in-the-loop (HITL) validations are added between agents. With this setup, AI handles the heavy lifting, an automation flow keeps everything in precise order, and humans validate AI outputs.
AI workflow example:
Flow trigger: Customer submits a refund request (via support form, helpdesk ticket, or directly through an account manager)
Agent 1: Issue validator
Role: Checks whether the refund is justified
Actions:
- Analyze ticket history and SLA violations
- Check support logs and account usage
- Review contract terms and refund policy
Output: Refund eligibility decision + supporting context
Agent 2: Refund evaluator
Role: Calculates refund amount and flags risks
Actions:
- Assess billing data and account value
- Weigh churn risk, past refund history, and customer tier
- If refund > $2,000, trigger HITL checkpoint
Output: Refund decision + recommended amount
Flow human-in-the-loop (HITL) checkpoint
Trigger: Refund amount exceeds $2,000
Role: Human reviewer (e.g., finance lead, account manager) reviews and approves/adjusts
Actions:
- Confirm or modify Agent 2's decision
- Add comments or exceptions if needed
Output: Final decision for execution
Agent 3: Refund notifier
Role: Notifies internal teams about the refund decision and its details
Actions:
- Log the action in CRM and the billing system
- Notify internal teams (finance, customer success)
Output: Refund approved, ready for processing
Flow action 1:
Process the refund via Stripe, Chargebee, or another billing platform
Flow Action 2:
Send confirmation to the customer using a predefined template
What will happen if you don't use flows
Now, as a thought exercise, let’s imagine the apocalyptic scenario: we’ve let AI handle the whole refund flow with no structured automation or human checks.
Since there's no predefined trigger to properly route refund requests into the flow, AI misreads vague tickets and auto-approves refunds for the wrong customers—some never even asked.
At the same time, justified refund requests from high-value enterprise clients are auto-declined by AI, and there’s no human to validate those decisions.
As a result, over-refunds reach $100K+ per case. Key accounts churn.
Management and finance are unaware of mismanaged refunds, as there’s no predefined flow step for notifications—and AI can easily mishandle them.
The bottom line: support is overwhelmed, brand trust takes a serious hit, and the company suffers major financial losses.
Agentic AI, Flows, or Both
The choice between AI agents, automation flows, or both depends on task complexity, precision, and risk.
Choose Agentic AI (Crews) when:
- You need AI agents to "team up" and collaborate.
- The problem benefits from different AI "perspectives" or creative thinking.
- It’s mostly research, writing, or analysis.
- Flexibility in the output is fine.
- SaaS example: A CRM using an AI crew to draft personalized follow-up email sequences based on client interaction history.
Choose Flows when:
- You need full control over each step of the process.
- The output must follow a strict, precise format
- There's a lot of "if X, then Y" logic.
- SaaS example: A customer support automation platform that uses a flow to route incoming tickets, classifying the request using a limited number of simple flags and assigning it to human (or AI) agents.
Add HITL when:
- Mistakes carry high financial, legal, or reputational risk
- AI decisions need human approval before execution
- You want oversight at key points without slowing down the entire workflow
Combine the above when:
- You’re dealing with a complex, multi-step task that requires both AI flexibility and tightly controlled execution. Think of a flow as the orchestrator—coordinating several AI agents, enforcing structure and human checks when the cost of errors is high.
- SaaS example: E-commerce platform managing product catalog updates across marketplaces
- One AI agent pulls product specs, images, and pricing from supplier feeds Another agent adapts listings to fit Amazon and Shopify requirements.
- Flow triggers and actions ensure structured input and output.
- If pricing conflicts or restricted categories are detected, it triggers a HITL checkpoint for the merchandising team to review.
Errors could result in incorrect listings, lost sales, or pricing discrepancies across platforms. This is why HTML is needed.
Summing up
At Albato, we already have dozens of AI connectors, and Agents are coming soon. Today, a standard AI agent workflow includes three core settings: selecting an LLM, connecting a database, and adding tools like Model Context Protocol. We're taking it one step further.
We’re introducing a fourth setting — the AI Judge. This intelligent layer will evaluate the agent’s output and make a decision: If the result meets the criteria, it proceeds through the workflow. If not, an alternative action chain is automatically triggered.
This marks a new level of autonomy and reliability in AI-driven processes. Stay tuned and be among the first to experience the AI Judge in action.
Read more:
