Highcoordination

Race Condition Failures

Concurrent agents make conflicting decisions or modifications to shared state, causing data corruption, inconsistent outcomes, or system failures.

Overview

How to Detect

Inconsistent results for identical requests. Data corruption in shared resources. Agents overwriting each other's work. Intermittent failures that are hard to reproduce. "Lost updates" where changes disappear.

Root Causes

Multiple agents accessing shared state without synchronization. Missing locking mechanisms. Lack of atomic operations. No conflict detection or resolution. Assumptions about execution order.

Need help preventing this failure?
Talk to Us

Deep Dive

Overview

Race conditions occur when multiple agents access and modify shared resources concurrently without proper synchronization. The outcome depends on the unpredictable timing of agent operations, leading to inconsistent and often incorrect results.

Classic Race Condition Pattern

Time    Agent A              Shared State       Agent B
────    ────────             ────────────       ────────
T1      Read balance: $100   balance = $100
T2                           balance = $100     Read balance: $100
T3      Deduct $30
T4      Write: $70           balance = $70
T5                           balance = $70      Deduct $50
T6                           balance = $50      Write: $50

Expected: $100 - $30 - $50 = $20
Actual: $50 (Agent A's update lost)

Multi-Agent Race Scenarios

Document Editing Race

Agent A: Editing paragraph 3
Agent B: Also editing paragraph 3
Agent C: Restructuring document

All three save simultaneously:
- A's changes overwritten by B
- C's restructure loses both A and B's work

Task Assignment Race

Task Queue: [Task 1]

Agent A: Checks queue, sees Task 1, starts processing
Agent B: Checks queue, sees Task 1, starts processing

Result: Task 1 processed twice, potentially with
conflicting outcomes

State Machine Race

Order Status: PENDING

Agent A: Transitions PENDING → PROCESSING
Agent B: Transitions PENDING → CANCELLED

Both succeed (no locking):
Database shows: CANCELLED
Agent A continues: Processes cancelled order

Memory/Context Race

Shared Context: {customer: "Alice", issue: "billing"}

Agent A: Updates context with resolution details
Agent B: Updates context with escalation details

Depending on timing:
- Resolution details lost, or
- Escalation details lost, or
- Corrupted merge of both

Detection Challenges

Non-Deterministic

Race conditions don't occur every time—they depend on precise timing:

Run 1: Works fine
Run 2: Works fine
Run 3: Data corrupted
Run 4: Works fine

Hard to Reproduce

In testing, timing is often different than production:

Test environment: Single-threaded, no races
Production: Multi-agent, races occur

Silent Corruption

Many race conditions don't cause errors—they cause wrong data:

No error thrown
No exception logged
Just incorrect results

Prevention Patterns

Optimistic Locking

def update_with_optimistic_lock(resource_id, update_fn):
    while True:
        resource = read(resource_id)
        version = resource.version

        new_value = update_fn(resource)

        success = write_if_version_matches(
            resource_id, new_value, version
        )

        if success:
            return new_value
        # else: retry with fresh read

Task Claiming

def claim_task(agent_id, task_id):
    result = atomic_update(
        tasks,
        {"_id": task_id, "claimed_by": None},
        {"$set": {"claimed_by": agent_id, "claimed_at": now()}}
    )
    return result.modified_count == 1

Event Sourcing

Instead of updating state, append events:

Event 1: {type: "deduct", amount: 30, agent: "A"}
Event 2: {type: "deduct", amount: 50, agent: "B"}

Current state = replay all events in order
No overwrites possible

How to Prevent

Atomic Operations: Use atomic read-modify-write operations for shared state.

Optimistic Locking: Detect conflicts at write time using version numbers.

Pessimistic Locking: Acquire locks before reading shared resources.

Event Sourcing: Append-only event logs instead of mutable state.

Task Claiming: Atomic claim mechanism before processing shared tasks.

Idempotency: Design operations to be safely repeatable.

Conflict Resolution: Define clear policies for resolving concurrent modifications.

Validate your mitigations work
Test in Playground

Real-World Examples

A multi-agent customer service system had agents racing to claim and process tickets. Without proper locking, customers received duplicate responses and conflicting resolutions for the same issue.