<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Reasoning-Loops on Engineering Notes</title><link>https://notes.muthu.co/tags/reasoning-loops/</link><description>Recent content in Reasoning-Loops on Engineering Notes</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en-us</language><lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://notes.muthu.co/tags/reasoning-loops/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>Least Commitment Planning How Agents Defer Decisions to Stay Flexible</title><link>https://notes.muthu.co/2026/04/least-commitment-planning-how-agents-defer-decisions-to-stay-flexible/</link><pubDate>Fri, 10 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://notes.muthu.co/2026/04/least-commitment-planning-how-agents-defer-decisions-to-stay-flexible/</guid><description>&lt;p>Most agent planners build a plan as an ordered list: do step 1, then step 2, then step 3. That works fine on paper. In practice, committing to a total order early creates brittle plans that break the moment reality diverges from the assumption baked into step 2.&lt;/p>
&lt;p>Least-commitment planning flips that instinct. Instead of ordering steps eagerly, the planner defers all ordering decisions it doesn&amp;rsquo;t have to make yet. The result is a &lt;strong>partial-order plan&lt;/strong>: a dependency graph of actions connected by causal links and ordering constraints, with no unnecessary sequencing. Steps that don&amp;rsquo;t depend on each other remain unordered until execution forces a choice.&lt;/p></description></item></channel></rss>