mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Architecting Resilient LLM Agents: A Guide to Secure Plan-then-Execute Implementations

arXiv 2509.08646 ↗First posted 10 Sep 2025cs.CR cs.AI cs.SYcited by 6

On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Agent threats, guardrails and governance

Abstract (arXiv)

As Large Language Model (LLM) agents become increasingly capable of automating complex, multi-step tasks, the need for robust, secure, and predictable architectural patterns is paramount. This paper provides a comprehensive guide to the ``Plan-then-Execute'' (P-t-E) pattern, an agentic design that separates strategic planning from tactical execution. We explore the foundational principles of P-t-E, detailing its core components - the Planner and the Executor - and its architectural advantages in predictability, cost-efficiency, and reasoning quality over reactive patterns like ReAct (Reason + Act). A central focus is placed on the security implications of this design, particularly its inherent resilience to indirect prompt injection attacks by establishing control-flow integrity. We argue that while P-t-E provides a strong foundation, a defense-in-depth strategy is necessary, and we detail essential complementary controls such as the Principle of Least Privilege, task-scoped tool access, and sandboxed code execution. To make these principles actionable, this guide provides detailed implementation blueprints and working code references for three leading agentic frameworks: LangChain (via LangGraph), CrewAI, and AutoGen. Each framework's approach to implementing the P-t-E pattern is analyzed, highlighting unique features like LangGraph's stateful graphs for re-planning, CrewAI's declarative tool scoping for security, and AutoGen's built-in Docker sandboxing. Finally, we discuss advanced patterns, including dynamic re-planning loops, parallel execution with Directed Acyclic Graphs (DAGs), and the critical role of Human-in-the-Loop (HITL) verification, to offer a complete strategic blueprint for architects, developers, and security engineers aiming to build production-grade, resilient, and trustworthy LLM agents.

Key facts. Cited by 6 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Agent threats, guardrails and governance, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 0 of its 47 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 10 Sep 2025.

Builds on

0 of 47 references.

No references here yet.

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2025: 3; 2026: 3.

6 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026KAIJU: An Executive Kernel for Intent-Gated Execution of LLM Agents
  2. 2026Toward Secure LLM Agents: Threat Surfaces, Attacks, Defenses, and Evaluation
  3. 2026PlanFlip: Attacking Multi-Agent LLM Systems via Planning-Phase Prompt Injection
  4. 2026Autonomous LLM Agents & CTFs: A Second Look
  5. 2026Securing LLM Agents Need Intent-to-Execution Integrity
  6. 2026On Understanding, Identifying, and Mitigating Vulnerabilities in Agentic Large Language Models
  7. 2026Toward Safe LLM Agents: A Survey of Specification, Verification, and Enforcement
  8. 2026From Agent Loops to Structured Graphs:A Scheduler-Theoretic Framework for LLM Agent Execution