The concept of a plugin has evolved dramatically in modern software architecture, especially with the rise of intelligent agents. But what exactly is a plugin today, and how does it fit into this new landscape? There is a certain kind of conversation that happens late in the afternoon, usually between someone who builds things and someone who helps them think, in which the original question evaporates entirely and something more interesting takes its place. You start by asking about plugins. You end up redesigning how software should work for the next decade. Nobody planned it that way. These are the best conversations.
What exactly is a plugin, anyway?
For most of the history of software, the answer was obvious. A plugin was a thing you bolted onto an existing system to extend it. You had your browser, and then you had Flash. You had Photoshop, and then you had filters. You had WordPress, and then you had approximately forty thousand plugins, roughly thirty-nine thousand of which were security vulnerabilities wrapped in good intentions. A plugin was the trapdoor built into software by people who knew they couldn’t anticipate everything, a small architectural confession that said: we couldn’t finish this, but maybe someone else can.
The word itself carries a satisfying physicality. You plug things in. You plug a lamp into a wall. You plug headphones into a phone, or you used to before someone decided that was too convenient. Plugging something in implies two things: a socket that already exists, and a device designed to fit it. The socket is the platform. The device is the plugin. Everyone understood this. It worked fine for thirty years.
Then something changed. Not the technology exactly, but the layer at which intelligence was being applied. And everything we thought we understood about sockets and devices started to come apart.
Here is what changed: Agents
An agent, in the current technical sense, is a piece of software powered by a large language model that not only responds to questions but also performs tasks. It reads your calendar, sends your emails, searches the web, writes your code, and books your appointments. It operates. It has goals. It takes steps. It fails, backtracks, tries again. It is, in a limited but genuinely meaningful sense, trying to accomplish something on your behalf rather than simply answering when spoken to.
This sounds like science fiction until you actually work with one for a while, at which point it sounds like a junior employee who is extraordinarily capable in some dimensions and mysteriously helpless in others. They can summarize a hundred documents in seconds. They cannot figure out that you want the meeting at 3 pm your time, not 3 pm UTC. You learn to be specific.
The interesting architectural question — the one that consumed that late-afternoon conversation — is: where do agents sit in a software system? The traditional answer to software architecture was confident and well-rehearsed. You had your frontend, the part users touch. You had your backend, the part that does the work. You had your middleware, the connective tissue between them. You had your database, the long-term memory. Everything had a place. Everything knew its role.
Drop an agent, where does it go?
The answer, it turns out, is that it sits above the middleware and below the user interface, which sounds simple until you realize it means the agent is now the thing deciding what the middleware does. The agent is not a feature. The agent is not a plugin. The agent is the operator. It reads a goal, figures out what tools it needs to achieve that goal, calls those tools in the right sequence, evaluates the results, and tries again if something goes wrong. The software that used to be operated by humans — the customer relationship management (CRM), the email system, the calendar, the analytics dashboard — becomes, in this model, a collection of tools available to the agent.
This is a significant shift. It means that software designed for human operation, software whose entire interface philosophy was built around the assumption that a person would click the buttons, now needs to be rethought. The buttons are probably still there. But increasingly, nobody is clicking them.
Consider Marcus. Marcus is a financial adviser. He has four hundred clients, a calendar that looks like a game of Tetris being played by someone having a panic attack, and a CRM system that, in moments of candor, he has described as “what would happen if a spreadsheet had an existential crisis.”
Every morning, Marcus logs into three different systems. He checks his email. He checks his calendar. He checks his CRM. He looks at notes from previous client meetings. He tries to remember which clients he needs to follow up with, which prospects are still warm, and which leads came in from the last webinar. He is, in a very real sense, the middleware. He is the connective tissue between the systems. He is doing, in his human brain, what software could theoretically do automatically.
Now, imagine that Marcus has a Copilot. Not a human assistant — a conversational agent that sits in front of all those systems and understands natural language. Marcus says, “Who did I promise to call this week?” and the agent checks his notes, cross-references his calendar, looks at his CRM, and tells him. Marcus says, “Draft a follow-up email to the clients who attended last month’s seminar but haven’t booked a call yet,” and the agent drafts it.
The CRM doesn’t change. The calendar doesn’t change. The email doesn’t change. But Marcus’s relationship to them does. He is no longer a human navigating software. He is a human talking to a system that navigates software on his behalf. The monolith — the all-in-one system built for human operation — is still there. But a new layer has been placed on top of it, and that layer is intelligent.
This is where the plugin question gets interesting again
When you ask an agent to do something, it needs to know what it’s allowed to do and how to do it. This is the role of tools. A tool, in the technical sense we’re working with here, is a function with a precise description: here is what this tool does, here are the inputs it accepts, and here are the outputs it returns. The agent reads these descriptions and decides which tools to use for a given task. It is, in essence, reading a menu and ordering.
The menu can get very long. A modern software system might have dozens or hundreds of potential tools available. Retrieving a contact. Creating a calendar event. Sending an email. Scoring a lead. Analyzing engagement metrics. Running a search. Each one is a tool. And here is where a quiet engineering problem emerges: if you give the agent access to all the tools at once, you fill up its context window — the limited space in which it can hold and process information — with descriptions of tools it mostly doesn’t need. It’s the equivalent of handing someone a menu for every restaurant in the city when they just want lunch. The solution, elegant in its simplicity, is something called a Tool Shed.
The Tool Shed
The Tool Shed is a routing layer. It sits between the agent and the full library of available tools. The agent describes what it’s trying to accomplish, and the Tool Shed — itself a kind of intelligent index — looks at that description and returns only the tools relevant to the task. The agent gets a short menu instead of an encyclopedia. It can think more clearly. It operates faster. It costs less to run. Think of it as the maitre d’ of the tool library. You don’t hand a guest the entire kitchen inventory. You seat them, assess their needs, and bring them what they need when they need it. But here’s where the architecture reveals something philosophically interesting. What happens when the agent needs a tool that doesn’t exist?
In a traditional software system, this is a crisis. You file a ticket. A developer gets assigned. Weeks pass. The feature ships. In an agentic system, this problem can be addressed differently. The agent detects that no existing tool matches its need. It drafts a specification for what such a tool would need to do. It proposes a schema — the structured description of inputs and outputs. And then, crucially, it stops. It waits. It presents the proposal to a human. A human approves it. The tool gets built, tested, and registered in the Tool Shed as version one. The agent can now use it.
This is tool synthesis on demand, and it represents a genuinely different relationship between humans and software systems. The system is not static. It not only does what it was explicitly programmed to do at the time of its construction. It notices its own gaps and asks for them to be filled. It learns what it cannot do and requests the ability to do it.
The human approval gate is not optional here. Remove it, and you have a system that autonomously expands its own capabilities without oversight — which sounds impressive and, in practice, is a good way to accumulate a library of broken, untested, mutually contradictory tools that no one fully understands. The gate is where engineering humility lives. And then there is the loop.
Every time a tool executes, it emits a signal. Did it succeed? How long did it take? How much did it cost? Did the agent have to retry? Did the client report a problem with the output? These signals accumulate. Over time, patterns emerge. A tool that worked well in January starts drifting in March. A tool that was fast becomes slow as the data it operates on grows. A new approach becomes available that would accomplish the same goal more cheaply.
The agent notices these patterns. It proposes improvements. A human reviews the proposal, approves it, and a new version of the tool is registered — version two, version three, version N plus one. The old versions are archived, not deleted. Clients who depend on stable behavior can pin to a specific version. New clients get the latest by default.
This is not a technical detail. This is a philosophy. The system is never finished. Every execution is evidence of how well the system is working. Every piece of evidence is an opportunity to make it better. The feedback loop is not a feature. It is the foundation.
Software is always updated, of course. But the update cycle was traditionally something that happened to software from outside — developers pushing new code, operations teams deploying new versions, users complaining until something changed. What’s different here is that the signal for change comes from inside the system itself. The tools monitor their own performance and request improvements. Humans remain in control of what actually changes, but the intelligence about what should change is continuously and automatically generated from real use.
Back to the original question: What is a plugin?
After a long conversation that wandered through tool sheds, feedback loops, and the future of financial adviser CRMs, the answer turned out to be simpler than expected. In this new architecture, a plugin is just an application programming interface (API). It’s the external interface through which other systems, other clients, other contexts reach into your system and say: here is an objective, here is who I am, here are the skills I want applied. The system runs. Results come back. The client never sees the Tool Shed, never sees the agent’s reasoning, never sees the version numbers accumulating in the registry. They see outcomes.
This is the real gift of good architecture: it makes complexity invisible. The user — Marcus, the financial adviser, overwhelmed by his calendar-Tetris and his existential CRM — doesn’t need to understand any of this. He says what he needs. The system handles it. Somewhere beneath the surface, an agent is reasoning, a Tool Shed is routing, tools are executing and emitting signals, a feedback loop is quietly improving everything, and a versioned registry is tracking how far the system has come since version one.
It runs like a city runs: chaotically, mostly well, continuously, invisibly. The infrastructure is there whether you think about it or not. It is, in the best sense of the word, engineered. The conversation ended, as these conversations do, not with a conclusion but with a direction. There were seven half-finished projects. There was one that was sixty percent done and needed to be finished before anything else. There was a client waiting. There was money on the table.
The architecture could wait. The beautiful diagram of layers, loops, and approval gates could wait. The system that would eventually embody all of it would be built tool by tool, version by version, signal by signal, the same way everything real gets built: one working thing at a time, each one a little better than the last. Ship the ads tool. Then build the architecture around what you learned. The Tool Shed will still be there when you’re ready. The systems described in this article are being built. The feedback loops are real. The human approval gates are non-negotiable. The version numbers are climbing.
Follow us on X, Facebook, or Pinterest
