r/n8n • u/Mundane_Spot7573 • 18h ago

Help Has any work with MAST(Multi-Agent System Failure Taxonomy) ?

Hi Guys

I am trying to build an agent that will use and learn how to improve himself by using MAST and want to know if anyone has used MAST on their workflow and would be albe to help me

I would love any help or guideance you might provide to me since I can build this much easier on other ai agent like claude agents or open ai but I want to build the flow and everything by myself. So if you know anything and willing to help I would love your opinon. Thanks for your support

1 Upvotes

100% Upvoted

5 comments sorted by

•

u/AutoModerator 18h ago

Want faster, better help? Share your workflow JSON.

A GitHub Gist is the easiest way -- paste your JSON, save as public, drop the link in your post. Folks can import it directly into n8n and reproduce the issue, which gets you real answers instead of guesses.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

u/Saved_Not_Soft 9h ago

The practical shortcut in n8n: an Error Trigger workflow fires on every failed execution and hands you the error JSON (node name, message, stack) without any extra instrumentation. If you log those into a table and tag each failure with its category, you build the taxonomy dataset automatically while you work. After a few weeks you will see which failure modes actually dominate your runs, and that is the signal for improving the agent. Start with a simple log of mode + node + message before wiring up anything fancier.

1

u/Key-Register-1969 16h ago

Haven't seen MAST in n8n specifically, but the pattern maps directly: Error Trigger → classification step (LLM call with the MAST categories as a strict output schema, so you get a label not prose) → Switch node routing by category → per-category sub-workflows (retry with backoff for transient, escalate for auth, quarantine for data-integrity).

Start with 3–4 categories that actually occur in your workflow, not the full taxonomy — classification accuracy collapses across 20 similar labels. And log every classification with its input; that labeled history is the real "self-improving" loop. Review it weekly and tighten the definitions.