mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Why Agentic Workflows Fail: A Taxonomy Derived from Literature and Empirical Data

arXiv 2610.17418 ↗First posted 12 Oct 2026cs.SE cs.AIcited by 0

On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Software engineering coding agents

Abstract (arXiv)

Agentic workflows combine large language models with planning, memory, tools, execution environments, and iterative feedback. Their failures are difficult to diagnose because the same user-visible symptom may originate from model behavior, workflow orchestration, external tools, infrastructure, or their interaction. This paper presents a source-aware taxonomy of agentic workflow failures and applies it to evidence from academic literature and GitHub. The taxonomy combines source attribution with three empirical dimensions: a concrete failure-type dictionary, workflow-stage localization, and agent-capability localization. Its central structure is a two-axis localization matrix: workflow stages form the horizontal process axis and agent capabilities form the vertical functional axis. This design moves beyond taxonomies that mainly classify final failure manifestations by localizing intermediate process states inside agent operation. Our empirical comparison shows that literature-derived failures emphasize planning, reasoning, learning, perception, and knowledge-related mechanisms, whereas GitHub-derived failures concentrate on execution-stage, actuation-related, tool, API, and infrastructure failures. The dominant hotspot is iterative execution and actuation. These findings indicate that agentic workflow reliability should be treated as a systems problem rather than only a model-output problem. The taxonomy provides a basis for structured evaluation, root cause analysis, failure injection, and engineering triage.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Software engineering coding agents, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 31 of its 44 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 12 Oct 2026.

Builds on

31 of 44 references.

Closest ancestors · 9

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2025Can Agents Fix Agent Issues?27 May
  2. 2025Which Agent Causes Task Failures and When? On Automated Failure Attribution of LLM Multi-Agent Systems30 Apr
  3. 2025Why Do Multi-Agent LLM Systems Fail?17 Mar
  4. 2024AppWorld: A Controllable World of Apps and People for Benchmarking Interactive Coding Agents26 Jul
  5. 2024OpenHands: An Open Platform for AI Software Developers as Generalist Agents23 Jul
  6. 2024Agentless: Demystifying LLM-based Software Engineering Agents1 Jul
  7. 2024SWE-agent: Agent-Computer Interfaces Enable Automated Software Engineering6 May
  8. 2023AutoGen: Enabling Next-Gen LLM Applications via Multi-Agent Conversation16 Aug
  9. 2023ChatDev: Communicative Agents for Software Development16 Jul

Other references · 22

  1. 2022ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Modelscited by 8,695
  2. 2023Toolformer: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Use Toolscited by 4,182
  3. 2021On the Opportunities and Risks of Foundation Modelscited by 4,033
  4. 2023SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?cited by 3,373
  5. 2023WebArena: A Realistic Web Environment for Building Autonomous Agentscited by 2,006
  6. 2023ToolLLM: Facilitating Large Language Models to Master 16000+ Real-world APIscited by 1,947
  7. 2023MetaGPT: Meta Programming for A Multi-Agent Collaborative Frameworkcited by 1,808
  8. 2023The Rise and Potential of Large Language Model Based Agents: A Surveycited by 1,439
  9. 2024τ-bench: A Benchmark for Tool-Agent-User Interaction in Real-World Domainscited by 1,402
  10. 2023CAMEL: Communicative Agents for "Mind" Exploration of Large Language Model Societycited by 1,395
  11. 2023AgentBench: Evaluating LLMs as Agentscited by 1,267
  12. 2024OSWorld: Benchmarking Multimodal Agents for Open-Ended Tasks in Real Computer Environmentscited by 1,195
10 more
  1. 2024Large Language Model based Multi-Agents: A Survey of Progress and Challengescited by 769
  2. 2023Trustworthy LLMs: a Survey and Guideline for Evaluating Large Language Models' Alignmentcited by 401
  3. 2024AgentBoard: An Analytical Evaluation Board of Multi-turn LLM Agentscited by 339
  4. 2024ToolSandbox: A Stateful, Conversational, Interactive Evaluation Benchmark for LLM Tool Use Capabilitiescited by 295
  5. 2024AI Agents That Mattercited by 219
  6. 2024Security and Privacy Challenges of Large Language Models: A Surveycited by 186
  7. 2023An Analysis of the Automatic Bug Fixing Performance of ChatGPTcited by 110
  8. 2023DevGPT: Studying Developer-ChatGPT Conversationscited by 12
  9. 2024An Empirical Study on Developers Shared Conversations with ChatGPT in GitHub Pull Requests and Issuescited by 9
  10. 2025What Characteristics Make ChatGPT Effective for Software Issue Resolution? An Empirical Study of Task, Project, and Conversational Signals in GitHub Issuescited by 6

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2025Demystifying the Lifecycle of Failures in Platform-Orchestrated Agentic Workflows
  2. 2025AgentCompass: Towards Reliable Evaluation of Agentic Workflows in Production
  3. 2025TRAIL: Trace Reasoning and Agentic Issue Localization
  4. 2026A Sober Look at Agentic Misalignment in Automated Workflows
  5. 2026AgentEval: DAG-Structured Step-Level Evaluation for Agentic Workflows with Error Propagation Tracking
  6. 2025Process-Centric Analysis of Agentic Software Systems
  7. 2025XAgen: An Explainability Tool for Identifying and Correcting Failures in Multi-Agent Workflows
  8. 2026Diagnosis-Driven Automatic Repair for Agentic Workflow via Symbolic Inference