The closing line is the one that got me — communication was never the hard part. But I'd push the identity example a bit further: say you actually resolve it, and the HR ID, the GitHub handle and the full name all turn out to be the same person. Your agents now agree on who. They still don't agree on what's true about them. A shared knowledge graph isn't shared truth, it's a shared pile of claims, and every line in it looks equally settled by default — including the one some agent wrote at 2am off a stale cache. Which makes me think the thing that should be moving between agents isn't the fact at all, it's the receipt for it: who issued this, over exactly which bytes, when, and does it expire. Make that the unit of exchange and the graph stops being a heap of anonymous assertions. Though I'd be honest about what that buys you — a receipt like that proves origin and integrity, not honesty. Whoever holds the signing key can write whatever they want and seal it perfectly validly.
Still worth building. It's just not the same thing as "verified," and I suspect plenty of systems are going to ship that badge without ever noticing the difference.
AI Agents Have a Communication Protocol Now. They Still Don't Remember Anything.
3 Comments
@[Ali Ulu] That's a sharper distinction than the one I made, and it's the right one. "They agree on who" and "they agree on what's true about who" aren't the same claim, and I ran them together.
The receipt framing is a good move. A knowledge graph built from provenance — who issued this, over what exact bytes, when, does it expire — at least tells you where a claim came from and whether it's stale. That's more than most systems in production are tracking today. But you're right to flag the ceiling on it fast: a signature proves origin and integrity, not accuracy. A wrong or malicious agent with a valid key can produce a record that's perfectly verifiable and perfectly false. That distinction matters, because "signed" and "verified" are getting used interchangeably in a lot of vendor language right now, and they're not the same word.
Where I'd push it one step further: if the receipt is the unit of exchange, you still need a policy for what happens when two valid, signed, contradictory receipts show up about the same fact. In a system running hundreds of agents, that's not an edge case. That's Tuesday. Provenance tells you who to ask. It doesn't tell you who's right.
This is worth its own follow-up. Appreciate you taking the closing line somewhere I didn't.
@[Tom Smith] You've named the thing I'd built but never actually articulated, and that's a genuinely useful thing to have pointed out.
The contradiction case is handled in the system I work on, but until I read your comment I couldn't have told you why it's handled the way it is. Two conflicting claims don't produce a winner. The conflict gets typed — agent-vs-agent is a named case, not an exception path — both sides' evidence is carried forward, and the recommendation is flag. Never reject, never an automatic pick. It goes to a human triage surface.
I'd assumed that was a limitation I'd get around to fixing. Your framing makes clear it's the correct ceiling, not a gap: provenance tells you who to ask, not who's right. So the honest output of a trust layer isn't a verdict, it's an escalation — and a system that quietly resolves the conflict for you is doing the one thing it has no standing to do.
Worth noticing the field is called recommendation and not verdict. Past me apparently knew something present me hadn't put into words yet. That's the part you added.
The follow-up is worth writing. If you do, I'd read it closely.
Please log in to add a comment.
Please log in to comment on this post.
More Posts
- © 2026 Coder Legion
- Feedback / Bug
- Privacy
- About Us
- Contacts
- You Tube
- Tiktok
- Premium Subscription
- Terms of Service
- Early Builders
That AI fluency comes from direct experience: I was one of the original six members of Google's Bard training team (now Gemini) and currently evaluate Meta's AI Business Assistant. I understand how these models work from the inside, which shapes how I write about them for a technical audience.
I specialize in LLM evaluation, prompt engineering, and RLHF methodologies, and I write about real-world implementation challenges — not theoretical possibilities. I attend major tech conferences to stay close to what developers actually face when deploying AI in production. Show less
More From Tom Smithverified
Related Jobs
- DATACOM SME (Data Communication Subject Matter Expert; all genders)NTT DATA, Inc. · Full time · United Kingdom
- Python & Snowflake DeveloperKForce · Full time · Dallas, TX
- Marketing and Communication AssociateAretum · Full time · Springfield, IL
Commenters (This Week)
Contribute meaningful comments to climb the leaderboard and earn badges!