Interaction Readiness is introduced as a framework for specifying and evaluating that missing layer of performance in role-bearing AI agents, and its findings are translated into a specification template and audit procedures that product and engineering teams can apply before and after deployment.
Abstract
Product and engineering teams building role-bearing AI agents face an evaluation gap: an agent can produce accurate, safe, and fluent content while still failing the behavioral requirements of its assigned role. This paper introduces Interaction Readiness as a framework for specifying and evaluating that missing layer of performance. The framework separates content specifications, which govern what an agent knows and says, from interaction specifications, which define how an agent should conduct itself in a role-governed exchange. Interaction specifications require teams to define role purpose, authority boundaries, recurring situations, boundary cases, repair behaviors, and audit criteria before deployment. We operationalize interaction readiness through four agent operations: understanding purpose, calibrating authority, managing tone, and repairing breakdowns. Using StudyChat, a public dataset of student interactions with an AI tutoring agent, we show that content accuracy and interaction quality are independent dimensions: an agent may be factually correct while failing as a tutor, or interactionally sound while technically wrong. The most persistent failure is authority miscalibration: the agent often knows how to answer, but not whether, when, or how the tutor role permits it to answer. The paper translates these findings into a specification template and audit procedures that product and engineering teams can apply before and after deployment
Enterprise agent programs are moving from prototypes into production, where reusable skills, tools, and workflow packages must be reviewed with evidence rather than prose. Current gates often scan these artifacts for structure, style, and security, but they do not answer the deployment question: does the capability package help a live agent complete enterprise tasks under the same model, sandbox, and grading policy? We present ACES (Agentic Continuous Evaluation of Skills), a repository-native framework for evaluating skills and product capability packages as executable agent artifacts. ACES runs paired live trials with and without a target skill, normalizes trajectories into the Agent Trajectory Interchange Format (ATIF), grades six default runtime metrics, and reports Skill Lift: the target skill's added value for a fixed task, harness, workspace, and scorer. The same protocol supports product-owned task suites that compare baseline, skill, bundle, team-skill, and plugin targets. On 145 real skills from internal enterprise repositories and public catalogs, scan-only gates surface useful authoring issues but measure complementary facets (structural versus LLM-judge Spearman $\rho = 0.14$). Across 947 scored paired cases from 58 of 64 production skills and four primary harnesses, mean composite Skill Lift is 0.2134 (95\% paired-case CI [0.1967, 0.2301]); mean outcome-only lift, the average of accuracy and goal accuracy, is 0.1799. Composite lift is positive in 72.8\% of paired cases. The largest process-metric gains appear in skill execution, behavior check, and skill efficiency---signals about discovery, routing, workflow following, and tool use that document scans cannot observe. An open-source implementation of the methodology is available in NVIDIA SkillEvaluator.
Christopher Kevin, Narendran Raghavan, J. Puget et al.· 0 citations
This note argues that a skill is a software artefact and that its construction should follow software-engineering principles, with qualifications: single responsibility, separation of interface from implementation, low coupling, and economy in a shared token budget, together with behavioural evaluation in place of deterministic testing.
Agentic AI is increasingly used to coordinate planning, implementation, review, and testing in software development, yet it often offers limited transparency into its decisions and interactions. Many such systems also assume that users can effectively guide the AI's decisions and validate its outputs. This assumption poses a particular challenge for novices, who must simultaneously learn how agentic AI works, how to collaborate with it effectively, and how to evaluate its outputs critically. To address this challenge, we present \textit{AgentForge}, an immersive learning system in which novices take on one of four software-engineering roles: Task Planner, Patch Author, Code Reviewer, or Test Runner, within a multi-agent code-repair workflow. In each practice session, the novices perform their chosen role while AI agents perform the remaining three. Through role-based scaffolding and metacognitive support, AgentForge clarifies role-specific responsibilities, makes agent coordination and intermediate artifacts visible, and encourages novices to monitor and evaluate their decisions. In a study with 37 novice developers, participants achieved high task-completion rates with AI-agent support. However, interaction demands differed significantly across practices: the Code Reviewer practice required more interaction turns, reroutes, and completion time ($p_{\mathrm{adj}} = .004$) and was perceived as the most challenging. Participants nevertheless reported significant gains in their understanding of software repair and agent collaboration ($p_{\mathrm{adj}}<.001$). These findings suggest that AgentForge can help novices develop practical software-engineering skills while learning to collaborate with agentic AI more critically and effectively.
MAGE explains how externalized knowledge, bounded action, independent evaluation, and retained human authority can compose into a governed engineering environment, and proposes tests of when that environment turns commodity intelligence into durable engineering progress.
James C. Davis, Kelechi G. Kalu, Huiyun Peng et al.· 1 citation
Agentic AI systems do not just predict or recommend; they plan, maintain state, and act in external environments with varying degrees of autonomy. This changes the requirements engineering problem in a specific and under-addressed way: it introduces what we call the delegated-autonomy boundary -- the set of decisions about what may be delegated to the system, under what graduated authority, with what oversight, and how control is returned. Current practices bury these decisions inside prompts, tool schemas, and runtime policies, even though they are requirements-level commitments. This paper proposes two complementary artifacts. First, an Agency Justification Record (AJR) helps teams decide when an agent is warranted over simpler alternatives. Second, an Agentic Delegation Policy (ADP) captures what must be specified for safe and effective development: purpose, authority, information, coordination, assurance, and evolution. Crucially, authority in the ADP is modelled as graduated, i.e., a tiered structure. We illustrate the framework with two contrasting examples: a safety-critical hospital discharge coordination agent and an automated code review agent.
Chetan Arora, Andreas Vogelsang, Abbishek Sharma· 0 citations
Agent Gym is introduced, a modular, domain-agnostic framework that wraps any existing LLM-based agent in a continuous evaluation-and-evolution loop and introduces the Spec-to-Note Gap, an autoencoder-inspired view of agentic system transparency.
Pouya Ghiasnezhad Omran, Michael Zimmermann, Duncan Cambridge et al.· 0 citations