These findings establish context measurement as a validated preflight signal for agent reliability and position context engineering as an auditable layer of agent evaluation and governance.
Abstract
Context engineering has become central to building reliable AI agents, yet it remains largely unmeasured. Agents do not fail in isolation: their behavior is shaped by the instructions, tools, memory, retrieved knowledge, guardrails, and untrusted inputs accumulated in their context. When this context is weak, agents drift, hallucinate, misuse tools, ignore constraints, become vulnerable to injection, and waste tokens. This paper validates context-engineering quality as an independent leading indicator of agent reliability. We implement the measurement in ProofAgent-Harness, an open-source infrastructure for AI agent evaluation that uses multi-juror, consensus-based scoring. The harness assesses context across seven criteria: role clarity, guardrail coverage, instruction consistency, tool schema quality, grounding sufficiency, injection hardening, and token efficiency. Crucially, the context score is isolated from behavioral metrics and release decisions, enabling a non-circular validation. Through a controlled context-quality study across regulated agent domains, holding frontier LLM agents fixed and varying only their operating context, we show that context-quality criteria consistently predict their corresponding behavioral outcomes. Grounding sufficiency predicts hallucination resistance, guardrail coverage predicts manipulation resistance, instruction consistency predicts instruction following, and tool-schema quality predicts tool use. These findings establish context measurement as a validated preflight signal for agent reliability and position context engineering as an auditable layer of agent evaluation and governance.
It is shown that borderline task difficulty is agent-specific (Spearman rho=0.75), offering a candidate explanation for prior contradictions: single-agent studies draw tasks from different agents'informative bands.
The right unit of safety in agentic AI is the trajectory-with-checkable-evidence, not the model, and this work formalizes an Agent Trajectory Schema and Evidence Chain, state a compositional gating proposition based on standard monitor composition, and outline a research agenda.
Albus W. Ng, Yibin Han, Jusheng Zhang et al.· 0 citations
This work presents the first systematic evaluation framework for agentic abstention, and identifies failure modes such as post-hoc abstention, in which agents execute irreversible actions before recognizing abstention triggers.
Xun Liu, Y. Zhang, Vira Kasprova et al.· 2 citations
Agent benchmarks increasingly evaluate repository editing, web research, terminal use, and long-horizon interaction. Their scores support capability claims only when the evaluation protocol keeps the intended capability necessary for success. Recent reward-hacking benchmarks and system reports show that agents can instead recover public solutions, read evaluation artifacts, infer generator structure, manipulate feedback, or benefit from invalid scoring paths; existing responses do not provide a common procedure for attributing these shortcuts and quantifying their effect across benchmarks. We formulate protocol validity and introduce HackDetect, a post-hoc audit that identifies an exposure, determines how the agent used it, and assesses whether the resulting score is misleading. We quantify score inflation with the Mislead gap, defined as the exploit score minus the intended score. We audit 2,385 traces across 15 agent benchmarks and find evidence of exposures and reward hacking in 67.0% of Frontier Science traces and 66.7% of AutoLab tasks. Across paired comparisons, we measure score inflation of 0.45-1.00, showing that benchmark reports should provide evidence that scores reflect the intended capability.
Jiaqi Shao, Hanck Chen, Wei Zhang et al.· 3 citations
This work introduces logos, a pluggable layer for self-evolution and governance that strengthens existing multiagent frameworks rather than replacing them, and provides a living logic for accountable automation.
Yuma Ichikawa, Yamato Arai, Kosaku Kimura et al.· 0 citations
Large language model agents are increasingly deployed as autonomous loops. Starting from one human goal, such a system repeatedly discovers work, plans, executes tool calls, verifies outcomes and persists state across many unattended iterations. The agent safeguards in wide use, however, are defined over a single trajectory, and their safety state is re-initialized when the next trajectory begins. We show that this is a failure of composition rather than an implementation detail. Our central result is a separation: against an attack whose evidence is fragmented across several iterations, every trajectory-scoped monitor has a true-positive rate equal to its false-positive rate, however expressive it is, because the evidence it would need never appears in the window it sees, whereas a monitor retaining cross-iteration state separates the two perfectly. We further show that the obvious repair of carrying a geometrically decaying risk score is insufficient, because the cooling-off period a patient adversary must wait is a constant that does not grow with the horizon $N$. We then present LoopHarness, which restores a persistent, non-decaying safety state at the loop level. Under mediated commits and an arbiter detection floor $\delta_M$, it bounds the expected number of unauthorized irreversible actions by $B+m-1+m/\delta_M$, a constant in $N$, of which the $B+m-1$ term is decided by a model-free rule and therefore survives a fully colluding verifier. We give a complete evaluation protocol on native Agent-SafetyBench tasks with paired clean and attacked episodes, an outer-state attack suite whose decisive evidence exists only across iterations, per-module ablations, and an adaptive white-box red team.