Your agent architecture has a half-life of 6 months — Dan Farrelly, CTO, Inngest @aiDotEngineer

Uploaded July 2026 | Updated September 2026, 3 weeks ago

A short history of the right way to build an agent: RAG, ReAct, prompt chaining, orchestrator-workers, MCP, CLI, MCP again... CLI again?? Every time you adopt a trend you rebuild your architecture. In this talk, Dan Farrelly, Inngest cofounder and CTO, is not going to tell you what comes next. He's going to show you how to build so it doesn't matter. He'll cover the core primitives that show up in every production agent, how bringing decisions closer to code provides more stack flexibility, and why the right execution layer unlocks faster iteration.

### Dan Farrelly
CTO and Co-founder · Inngest
[LinkedIn](linkedin.com/in/djfarrelly)

Dan Farrelly is CTO and co-founder of Inngest, a platform for durable serverless functions, workflows and agent orchestration. He was previously CTO at Buffer and created developer tools including Timezone.io and MailDev.

Your agent architecture has a half-life of 6 months — Dan Farrelly, CTO, Inngest

Don’t be data poor — Anuj Iravane, Anterior

Adaption Labs: Gradient-Free Continual Learning — Sara Hooker, Adaption

Autonomous Agents for Scientific Tasks - Sina Shahandeh, Radicait

Generative Video at the Speed of Light — Keegan McCallum, uRun

The Missing Layer in Agentic AI — Giedrius Šteimantas, Oxylabs

Guardrails First: Engineering Member-Facing Health AI — Rashi Agrawal, Hinge Health

KV Cache-Aware Routing and P/D Disaggregation on Kubernetes — Yuchen Fama & Ashish Kamra, Red Hat

How to Kill the Code Review — Ankit Jain, Aviator

$DeepSWE: A Contamination-Resistant Coding Benchmark — James Shi, Datacurve DeepSWE is 113 software engineering tasks written from scratch, not scraped from pull requests, so a model cannot have seen them in training. Each one is a long horizon problem drawn from a real open source repository, authored by engineers who actually maintain that code, with isolated environments and program based verifiers that check observable behavior rather than trusting the models own account. James Shis point is that once you remove the contamination the leaderboard stops clustering: strong models pull far ahead and others, Gemini 3.1 Pro among them, fall toward the bottom. The more revealing signal is in how models fail. Some quietly expand a task beyond what was asked, a failure mode DeepSWE scores in its own right, and Claude models did this a good fraction of the time while GPT models did it less often. Stronger models also tend not to verify their own work, and there is a real gap between the ones that test what they wrote and the ones that assume it is correct. Since reward hacking is a constant temptation, the verifiers are built to be gamed as little as possible, keeping the score anchored to the objective rather than to a convincing looking rollout. Speaker info: - https://x.com/shiqyy - https://www.linkedin.com/in/jamesshi117/ - https://deepswe.datacurve.ai Timestamps: 0:00 - Introduction: the DeepSWE benchmark 1:03 - 113 original, contamination-resistant tasks 2:08 - What makes a good benchmark 3:51 - The leaderboard and model spread 5:18 - Failure mode: over-scoping the task 7:16 - Do models verify their own work? 8:45 - Tasks authored by core contributors 10:15 - Writing realistic, high level prompts 11:45 - Program based verifiers and observable behavior 13:43 - Limitations and future work 15:25 - Reward hacking and keeping it cheating proof$

Persona Engineering: A Field Guide to AI Synthetic Personas — Ishan Anand, InsightSciences.ai

Trading Desks to Clinical Trials: Parallels in Applied Vertical AI — Ayush Bhardwaj, Allos AI