Statewright – Visual state machines that make AI agents reliable

Agentic problem solving in its current state is very brittle. I fell in love with it, but it creates as many problems as it solves.I'm Ben Cochran, I spent 20+ years in the trenches with full-stack Engineering, DevOps, high performance computing & ML with stints at NVIDIA, AMD and various other organizations most recently as a Distinguished Engineer.For agents to work reliably you either need massive parameter counts or massive context windows to keep the solution spaces workable. Most people are brute forcing reliability with bigger models and longer prompts.What if I made the problem smaller instead of making the model bigger?I took a different approach by using smaller models: models in the 13-20B parameter range and set them to task solving real SWE-bench problems. I constrained the tool and solution spaces using formal state machines. Each state in the machine defines which tools the model can access, how many iterations it gets and what transitions are valid. A planning state gets read-only tools. An implementation state gets edit tools (scoped to prevent mega edits) and write friendly bash tools. The testing state gets bash but only for testing commands. The model cannot physically skip steps or use the wrong tool at the wrong time. It is enforced via protocol, not via prompts.The results were more promising than I would have expected. Across multiple model families irrespective of age (qwen-coder, gpt-oss, gemma4) and the improvements were consistent above the 13B parameter inflection point. Below that, models can navigate the state machine but can't retain enough context to produce accurate edits. More on the research bit: https://statewright.ai/researchSurprisingly this yielded improvements in frontier models as well. Haiku and Sonnet start to punch above their weight and Opus solves more reliably with fewer tokens and death spirals. Fine tuning did not yield these kinds of functional improvements for me. The takeaway it se

Hacker NewsToolAISource
0Sign in to voteCopy link

FL score

78

out of 100

Verdict

BUILD

high confidence

Competition

No competitor data yet

Trend

No signal yet

Formal state machines that constrain AI agent behavior to achieve reliable task completion with smaller, cheaper models

The pain

AI agents are unreliable and expensive, companies either brute-force reliability with massive models/context windows or accept frequent failures. Current approaches waste tokens, hit rate limits, and create unpredictable behavior in production systems.

The gap

No existing tooling constrains agent action spaces at the protocol level. Prompt engineering and fine-tuning don't prevent logical errors or tool misuse. The market lacks a framework that makes smaller models (13-20B) competitive with frontier models on complex reasoning tasks.

Build angle

Start with SWE-bench as the beachhead (software engineering is high-value, measurable, repeatable). Build a visual state machine editor + runtime that enforces tool access, iteration limits, and valid transitions. Monetize via API usage, enterprise licensing, or embedded SDK. Expand to other domains (data analysis, customer support automation) once SWE is proven.

Strengths

  • Founder has 20+ years credibility (NVIDIA, AMD, Distinguished Engineer) + published research validating the approach
  • Addresses real pain point: AI agent unreliability is a blocker for production adoption
  • Works across model families (Qwen, GPT-OSS, Gemma, Claude) suggesting broad applicability
  • Enables cost reduction (smaller models) while improving reliability, rare win-win
  • Measurable, repeatable validation (SWE-bench benchmarks)
  • Protocol-level enforcement is harder to copy than prompt tricks

Risks

  • Market timing: AI agent adoption still nascent; enterprises may not yet feel pain acutely enough to pay
  • Competitive moat unclear: Claude/OpenAI could add state machine features to their platforms; hard to defend
  • Generalization risk: SWE-bench success may not translate to other domains (agents need different constraints for different tasks)
  • Go-to-market complexity: selling to enterprises requires sales/support; B2B SaaS is capital-intensive
  • Research-to-product gap: published results don't guarantee a scalable, user-friendly product
  • Dependency on open models: if frontier models (Opus, Sonnet) dominate, proprietary API lock-in reduces TAM

Questions about this idea?

FlyBot reads the scoring and gives you a second opinion on “Statewright – Visual state machines that make AI agents reliable”.

Open FlyBot