Skip to content

From Proposal to Verified Effect: Praxa, an Evidence-Bound Harness for Governed AI Agent Execution

Jul 2026 · 0 citations · 36 references
Computer Science

TL;DR

Praxa, an agent harness that represents these states explicitly through deterministic admission, brokered execution, external read-back, reconciliation, and reviewed promotion, is presented, an evidence-bound architecture that makes authority-to-effect transitions explicit and testable.

Abstract

Large-language-model agents can propose and execute actions, but proposal, authority, dispatch, verified external effect, and serving promotion are different claims. We present Praxa, an agent harness that represents these states explicitly through deterministic admission, brokered execution, external read-back, reconciliation, and reviewed promotion. We report four evidence lanes. First, an author-run repository-local audit at a pinned revision passed 1,027/1,027 unit tests and 89/89 Workerd tests, instrumented all 363 expected source files, and met four coverage floors; raw per-test transcripts and independent reproduction are unavailable. Second, in a provider-backed Terminal-Bench Core 0.1.1 pilot across 12 curated tasks, baseline and reliability-layer arms each passed 17/36 strict trials. The reliability layer used 37.49% more input and 50.73% more output tokens, so the pilot does not support superiority. Third, in a post-debug, two-order coordination-proxy development comparison, baseline and a source-authored candidate each completed 180/180 trials with equal measured accuracy, full hermetic crash recovery, and zero protected violations. The candidate used 37.11% fewer tokens, 33.84% lower estimated endpoint cost, and 11.63% fewer steps; this does not establish improved quality, latency, or production behavior. Fourth, deployed source/configuration evidence shows bounded reflection, recall accounting, memory compilation, and tool-health paths, but no production outcome lift. Praxa's supported contribution is an evidence-bound architecture that makes authority-to-effect transitions explicit and testable. Current evidence does not establish adversarial security, production safety, general specialist superiority, autonomous recursive optimization, or user benefit.

View source

Similar papers

#artificial intelligence Preprint Sep 2026

SINGED: Correct Outputs Do Not Certify Safe Execution in LLM Agents

This work introduces SINGED (Source Integrity and the Nonidentifiability Gap in Execution Decisions for LLM Agents), a controlled benchmark covering five primary and two held-out task families and exposes a rank-, evidence-, and choice-sensitive outcome-to-execution gap.

XiaoYu Xu, Zi Liang, Min-Xin Du et al. · 0 citations
#artificial intelligence Preprint Oct 2026

Verify Claims, Not Scores: Evidence-Based Verification of Modular Agents

When developers change one component of an agent, such as its controller, a learned model or its verifier, they usually judge the change by an aggregate task score. That score cannot tell whether improvement was attainable, which component lost value, or what the agent's own checks certify. We introduce a claim-specifi...

A. Alzahrani · 0 citations
Preprint Aug 2026

When May an Agent Stop? Evidence-Carrying Termination for Tool-Using LLMs

Evidence-Carrying Termination (ECT): an agent may return COMPLETE only when a typed certificate binds every required answer claim to valid, in-scope trace evidence and a deterministic replay reconstructs the claimed value.

Jason Liu · 3 citations
#artificial intelligence Preprint Oct 2026

Evidence-First Agentic Verification

Long-horizon, semi-verifiable agentic tasks often rely on rubric-based evaluation, but the evidence needed to assess these tasks can be spread across the environment state and the execution trace. A judge may overlook this evidence or accept unsupported claims, including an agent's own reports of success. When rubric v...

Reza Sanayei, Razvan-Gabriel Dumitru, Sun-Jie Hou et al. · 0 citations
#artificial intelligence Preprint Sep 2026

How Do Agent Harnesses Create Value? Planning Information and Release Control in Stateful LLM Agents

Which component matters more depends on the loss assigned to erroneous acceptance: at low liability the planning gain dominates; at high liability the verifier's avoided false passes dominate; and a standalone verifier captures nearly all the false-pass benefit of the full planning-plus-verification stack at a fraction...

Yu-Kun Zhang, Ke-Mu Xu, Yi-Shen Chen · 2 citations

Related blog posts

Hugging Face Blog Oct 20, 2026

MPS in PyTorch 2.15

We’re on a journey to advance and democratize artificial intelligence through open source and open science.

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.