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

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.17418 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.17418/

## 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.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [Software engineering coding agents](https://mlsanity.com/agents/software-engineering-coding-agents/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 31)

- [ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.03629/) (2022)
- [Toolformer: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Use Tools](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.04761/) (2023)
- [On the Opportunities and Risks of Foundation Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2108.07258/) (2021)
- [SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.06770/) (2023)
- [WebArena: A Realistic Web Environment for Building Autonomous Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.13854/) (2023)
- [AutoGen: Enabling Next-Gen LLM Applications via Multi-Agent Conversation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.08155/) (2023)
- [ToolLLM: Facilitating Large Language Models to Master 16000+ Real-world APIs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.16789/) (2023)
- [MetaGPT: Meta Programming for A Multi-Agent Collaborative Framework](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.00352/) (2023)
- [SWE-agent: Agent-Computer Interfaces Enable Automated Software Engineering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.15793/) (2024)
- [The Rise and Potential of Large Language Model Based Agents: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.07864/) (2023)
- [τ-bench: A Benchmark for Tool-Agent-User Interaction in Real-World Domains](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.12045/) (2024)
- [CAMEL: Communicative Agents for "Mind" Exploration of Large Language Model Society](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.17760/) (2023)
- [AgentBench: Evaluating LLMs as Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.03688/) (2023)
- [OSWorld: Benchmarking Multimodal Agents for Open-Ended Tasks in Real Computer Environments](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.07972/) (2024)
- [OpenHands: An Open Platform for AI Software Developers as Generalist Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.16741/) (2024)
- [ChatDev: Communicative Agents for Software Development](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.07924/) (2023)
- [Large Language Model based Multi-Agents: A Survey of Progress and Challenges](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.01680/) (2024)
- [Why Do Multi-Agent LLM Systems Fail?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.13657/) (2025)
- [Agentless: Demystifying LLM-based Software Engineering Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.01489/) (2024)
- [Trustworthy LLMs: a Survey and Guideline for Evaluating Large Language Models' Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.05374/) (2023)
- [AppWorld: A Controllable World of Apps and People for Benchmarking Interactive Coding Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.18901/) (2024)
- [AgentBoard: An Analytical Evaluation Board of Multi-turn LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.13178/) (2024)
- [ToolSandbox: A Stateful, Conversational, Interactive Evaluation Benchmark for LLM Tool Use Capabilities](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.04682/) (2024)
- [AI Agents That Matter](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.01502/) (2024)
- [Security and Privacy Challenges of Large Language Models: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.00888/) (2024)
- [Which Agent Causes Task Failures and When? On Automated Failure Attribution of LLM Multi-Agent Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.00212/) (2025)
- [An Analysis of the Automatic Bug Fixing Performance of ChatGPT](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2301.08653/) (2023)
- [DevGPT: Studying Developer-ChatGPT Conversations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.03914/) (2023)
- [An Empirical Study on Developers Shared Conversations with ChatGPT in GitHub Pull Requests and Issues](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.10468/) (2024)
- [Can Agents Fix Agent Issues?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.20749/) (2025)

## 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.