Avoiding Chaos: The Right Team Setup for Agentic AI Products

Not every GenAI product needs this setup. But if you're building agent-style tools or task-based assistants that'll see real users, real logs, and real feedback — your team structure will either speed you up or slow you down.

In this post, I want to share what's worked for me: a model where engineers build the core platform, but product leads (and sometimes even customer-facing folks) run the day-to-day iteration loop. That means reviewing agent behavior, annotating bad responses, tweaking prompts — all without needing a new deploy or dragging a dev into the room.

It's not for every team. But when it fits, it keeps you moving — and keeps your engineers focused on what they do best.

---

1. When This Structure Works — and When It Doesn't

This setup isn't universal — and that's the point.

If your AI logic is tightly coupled with your backend or needs deep integration with internal systems, you might not be able to separate things cleanly. Same goes for regulated industries or any product handling sensitive data — the risks usually require tighter control and review.

But if you're building GenAI tools that:

• Use platforms like Dify, CrewAI, or Langfuse
• Focus on agent workflows or prompt-based flows
• Don't need deep backend logic for every decision

…then you can (and probably should) let product own the iteration loop.

These platforms are designed to support fast, product-led iteration — which is why I highly recommend them. I covered this more in my previous post on building GenAI MVPs. It's faster, safer, and scales better than routing every small tweak through engineering.

---

2. Ship Once, Iterate Often — Without Devs

Here's the reality of GenAI products: most of the iteration happens after launch.

You might ship with a decent prompt, but once real users start interacting, you'll find gaps — in context, tone, clarity, fallback logic. If your product team can't act on those quickly, the whole thing stalls.

That's why I push for a structure where engineers focus on building the foundation — auth, APIs, backend services, observability — and product leads take ownership of the AI layer. With the right setup, they can review logs, edit prompts, test changes, and even push updates to staging without writing a line of code.

This only works if your GenAI architecture is built to support it. Which is exactly why platforms like Dify and CrewAI are so useful — they give non-engineers real tools to run real experiments. It's not about cutting corners. It's about moving fast, safely.

---

3. Feedback Loops Belong to Product

User feedback isn't just "nice to have" in GenAI — it's critical signal.
Thumbs up/down. Confused replies. Repeated queries that fall flat. Every one of those is a clue.

And someone needs to own that loop. Not just collect it — review it, respond to it, and act on it.

This is where the product team should be in the driver's seat. They're closest to the UX. They understand the edge cases. And with the right platform, they can:

• Review flagged conversations or bad ratings
• Identify where prompts or context fall short
• Annotate known questions or create fallback flows
• Test fixes right in the same interface

No need to file a ticket or ask a dev to "just tweak this one thing."
Let product iterate in place — and only loop in engineers when a deeper fix is needed.

---

Final Thoughts

This model won't work for every GenAI team. But when it does, it's a game-changer.

Let engineers build the platform. Let product own the iteration loop.
That's how you move fast and stay sane — especially when the feedback never stops, and the LLM never does exactly what you want.

Structure your team so the right people can act at the right time — without bottlenecks.
Because in GenAI, the real work doesn't stop after launch. It just changes hands.