Testing Tools Are Not Production Infrastructure

Watching teams discover their Playwright setup won't scale past demos—it's like watching clouds gather before rain hits. You know what's coming. The industry lumps "browser automation" into one bucket when it's really two architectures solving completely different problems. What's ahead: way more companies hitting this wall as agents move from proof-of-concept to actual production. The gap isn't subtle when you're suddenly managing thousands of browser sessions and everything that seemed simple in staging breaks against real sites.
Testing Tools Are Not Production Infrastructure

Watching teams discover their Playwright setup won't scale past demos—it's like watching clouds gather before rain hits. You know what's coming. The industry lumps "browser automation" into one bucket when it's really two architectures solving completely different problems. What's ahead: way more companies hitting this wall as agents move from proof-of-concept to actual production. The gap isn't subtle when you're suddenly managing thousands of browser sessions and everything that seemed simple in staging breaks against real sites.

When Developer Tools Made Selectors Disposable

Last week someone asked why their web automation keeps breaking even when sites look exactly the same. Got me thinking about this frontend tooling shift around 2015 that nobody building automation saw coming. Component frameworks solved real developer problems by making CSS selectors disposable—regenerating them on every build. Brilliant for internal teams, absolute nightmare for systematic monitoring.
The forecast: this gap between "site looks stable" and "selectors regenerate constantly" keeps widening as more teams adopt modern frontend stacks. Not about blaming developers, they optimized for the right use case. Just need to understand why reliable web automation now requires infrastructure depth most enterprises completely underestimate.

When Developer Tools Made Selectors Disposable

Last week someone asked why their web automation keeps breaking even when sites look exactly the same. Got me thinking about this frontend tooling shift around 2015 that nobody building automation saw coming. Component frameworks solved real developer problems by making CSS selectors disposable—regenerating them on every build. Brilliant for internal teams, absolute nightmare for systematic monitoring.
The forecast: this gap between "site looks stable" and "selectors regenerate constantly" keeps widening as more teams adopt modern frontend stacks. Not about blaming developers, they optimized for the right use case. Just need to understand why reliable web automation now requires infrastructure depth most enterprises completely underestimate.

An Interview With Rate Limiting (Who Insists You've Been Misunderstanding Them)
An Interview With Rate Limiting (Who Insists You've Been Misunderstanding Them)

Pattern Recognition from the Field
I keep seeing the same thing: agents that shine in demos fall apart when you run them repeatedly. Superface's benchmarks tell the story. Simple CRM tasks like creating Salesforce leads or updating HubSpot pipelines fail 75% of the time when agents chain them together. Single actions might work half the time. String six together and you're looking at 10-20% success rates.
Carnegie Mellon found even the best models complete only 30% of office tasks autonomously. The arithmetic is brutal. A 20% error rate per action means a five-step workflow has a 32% chance of working end-to-end.
Companies are building agents without evaluation infrastructure. They're treating probabilistic systems like deterministic code. What actually works: build your eval framework before your agent. Design for graceful failure from day one. Use specialist agents handling 10-20 tools maximum instead of one super-agent trying to do everything. The demo-to-production gap isn't something to solve. It's a constraint to design around.
I keep seeing the same thing: agents that shine in demos fall apart when you run them repeatedly. Superface's benchmarks tell the story. Simple CRM tasks like creating Salesforce leads or updating HubSpot pipelines fail 75% of the time when agents chain them together. Single actions might work half the time. String six together and you're looking at 10-20% success rates.
Carnegie Mellon found even the best models complete only 30% of office tasks autonomously. The arithmetic is brutal. A 20% error rate per action means a five-step workflow has a 32% chance of working end-to-end.
Companies are building agents without evaluation infrastructure. They're treating probabilistic systems like deterministic code. What actually works: build your eval framework before your agent. Design for graceful failure from day one. Use specialist agents handling 10-20 tools maximum instead of one super-agent trying to do everything. The demo-to-production gap isn't something to solve. It's a constraint to design around.
Questions Worth Asking

