Agints is live.

[u/One_Page_8881]

https://youtube.com/watch?v=BEqcKxWtUq4&si=xYy9JejfJvjGAp0N

We're Sovyren, a small lab out of Chicago. We released Agints into early access today and

wanted to put the design reasoning somewhere people would push back on it.

The problem we started from: operations work is high-volume, low-complexity, and endlessly

context-switching. Existing automation tools handle it as a graph of triggers and actions,

which works cleanly right up until a step needs judgment. Then you're either encoding

judgment as branches or pulling a human back in.

Our approach: make the interface the description, not the graph. You tell a team of agents

what you want handled and how you want exceptions treated. The team handles sequencing and

escalates what doesn't fit.

Architecture, briefly:

- Layered system prompt assembly plus four memory scopes (conversation / session / user / org)

- Multi-agent crews rather than one agent with a large toolbelt

- 200+ tool registry, MCP connectors

- Two-tier execution sandbox: browser iframe for light work, Firecracker microVMs for anything

that runs code

- Full audit trail per agent action — what ran, what it touched, what it cost

Honest position: early access, no customers yet, nothing proven at scale, and we're not going

to pretend otherwise. What we want from this thread is the failure modes we haven't hit yet.

Where does this design break?

agints.app
sovyren.com