mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

What Is Your Agent's GPA? A Framework for Evaluating Agent Goal-Plan-Action Alignment

arXiv 2510.08847 ↗First posted 9 Oct 2025cs.AI cs.MAcited by 7

On the map: LLM agents and tool use → General LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks

Abstract (arXiv)

We introduce the Agent GPA (Goal-Plan-Action) framework, driven by the fundamental insight that critical agent failures emerge at the intersections of setting goals, devising plans, and executing actions. We operationalize the framework with a factorized suite of LLM judges designed to measure distinct elements of Goal-Plan-Act alignment. To make this methodology scalable and generalizable across diverse agent architectures and datasets, we use state-of-the-art automated prompt optimization techniques to systematically generate domain-specific evaluation criteria. We validate this approach across three benchmarks: a multi-agent research setting (TRAIL/GAIA), a single coding agent setting (TRAIL/SWE-bench), and a private, enterprise data-agent setting (Snowflake Intelligence). Extensive evaluation on TRAIL/GAIA demonstrates the core validity of the framework, which identifies a broad range of agent failures (95% of human-annotated errors), localizes errors to enable targeted debugging (86% of human-annotated errors), and exhibits strong agreement with human evaluators. Crucially, by applying our automated methodology to both public datasets, we demonstrate that our GPA judges generally achieve the highest error coverage (ranging from 76% to 86%) in comparison to manual prompting approaches. We also leverage an evolutionary coding agent to improve judge consistency by up to 38% through iterative refinement of evaluation rubrics. Overall, Agent GPA provides a rigorous and generalizable paradigm for targeted agent evaluation.

Key facts. Cited by 7 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in General LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 16 of its 58 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 9 Oct 2025.

Builds on

16 of 58 references.

Closest ancestors · 6

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2025Evaluation and Benchmarking of LLM Agents: A Survey29 Jul
  2. 2025Get Experience from Practice: LLM Agents with Record & Replay23 May
  3. 2025Plan-and-Act: Improving Planning of Agents for Long-Horizon Tasks12 Mar
  4. 2024Plancraft: an evaluation dataset for planning with LLM agents30 Dec
  5. 2023AgentBench: Evaluating LLMs as Agents7 Aug
  6. 2023AdaPlanner: Adaptive Planning from Feedback with Language Models26 May

Other references · 10

  1. 2021Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Codecited by 8,053
  2. 2023A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Modelscited by 1,227
  3. 2024Chatbot Arena: An Open Platform for Evaluating LLMs by Human Preferencecited by 1,151
  4. 2023GAIA: a benchmark for General AI Assistantscited by 1,084
  5. 2024AI Agents That Mattercited by 199
  6. 2025AgentRewardBench: Evaluating Automatic Evaluations of Web Agent Trajectoriescited by 99
  7. 2025TRAIL: Trace Reasoning and Agentic Issue Localizationcited by 98
  8. 2025PlanGenLLMs: A Modern Survey of LLM Planning Capabilitiescited by 82
  9. 2025Evaluating Step-by-step Reasoning Traces: A Surveycited by 62
  10. 2025Evaluating the Goal-Directedness of Large Language Modelscited by 15

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 7.

7 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Agent psychometrics: Task-level performance prediction in agentic coding benchmarks
  2. 2026AgentAtlas: Beyond Outcome Leaderboards for LLM Agents
  3. 2025Auto-Eval Judge: Towards a General Agentic Framework for Task Completion Evaluation
  4. 2026Beyond Task Completion: Revealing Corrupt Success in LLM Agents through Procedure-Aware Evaluation
  5. 2026Agent Planning Benchmark: A Diagnostic Framework for Planning Capabilities in LLM Agents
  6. 2026Gram: Assessing sabotage propensities via automated alignment auditing
  7. 2025Just Do It!? Computer-Use Agents Exhibit Blind Goal-Directedness
  8. 2026The Double Measurement Confound in Agent Benchmarks: De-Scaffolding, Ground-Truth Scoring, and Reliability Beyond the Mean