Skip to content

Agentic or not?

“Agentic” is one of the most overused terms in AI right now.

Some people call a chatbot agentic.

Others say it’s only agentic if it can take actions.

Some teams label any workflow automation as an “agent.”

In many real-world projects, this leads to a familiar challenge: long debates on whether a solution is truly agentic — and if it is, what level of autonomy or intelligence it can realistically claim.

A helpful way to cut through the noise is to think of agentic systems as a progression of capabilities, rather than a binary label.

Below is a simple breakdown of agentic maturity levels, based on logic and capability. This framing is adapted from Google’s agent learning materials shared as part of the “5-Day Agents” guide at https://www.kaggle.com/learn-guide/5-day-agents

Agentic Levels: From Simple to Advanced

Agent Level Name Progression Logic Capability
0 Core Reasoning System (“Brain”) Operates in isolation using only pre-trained knowledge. No tools (“hands”) and no memory, so it can’t react to new real-world information. Explains concepts, answers questions, and creates theoretical plans based on what it already knows.
1 Connected Problem-Solver Adds tools/APIs so it can Act and Observe, overcoming real-time blindness. Checks live information (e.g., sports scores), queries internal systems, uses RAG to fetch enterprise knowledge.
2 Strategic Problem-Solver Uses context engineering to manage multi-step goals by selecting the right information for each stage of execution. Solves multi-part tasks like calculating a midpoint and using it to trigger focused follow-up searches or actions.
3 Collaborative Multi-Agent System Scales through delegation: a “manager” agent assigns sub-tasks to specialist agents (treated like tools). Automates full workflows by dividing work across agents (research, coding, marketing, etc.) and combining outputs.
4 Self-Evolving System Uses meta-reasoning to detect capability gaps and autonomously create new tools or sub-agents to fill them. Expands its own skillset on the fly (e.g., creates a sentiment-analysis specialist, tests it, and adds it to the team).

So the next time the conversation shifts to “agentic or not,” this table can help teams align quickly — and focus on the real question:

What level of agentic capability are we building, and what level do we actually need?

Team Cennest!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *