Governance Architecture for Autonomous Agent Systems: Threats, Framework, and Engineering Practice
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Agent threats, guardrails and governance
also in 1 more
Abstract (arXiv)
Autonomous agents powered by large language models introduce a class of execution-layer vulnerabilities -- prompt injection, retrieval poisoning, and uncontrolled tool invocation -- that existing guardrails fail to address systematically. In this work, we propose the Layered Governance Architecture (LGA), a four-layer framework comprising execution sandboxing (L1), intent verification (L2), zero-trust inter-agent authorization (L3), and immutable audit logging (L4). To evaluate LGA, we construct a bilingual benchmark (Chinese original, English via machine translation) of 1,081 tool-call samples -- covering prompt injection, RAG poisoning, and malicious skill plugins -- and apply it to OpenClaw, a representative open-source agent framework. Experimental results on Layer 2 intent verification with four local LLM judges (Qwen3.5-4B, Llama-3.1-8B, Qwen3.5-9B, Qwen2.5-14B) and one cloud judge (GPT-4o-mini) show that all five LLM judges intercept 93.0-98.5% of TC1/TC2 malicious tool calls, while lightweight NLI baselines remain below 10%. TC3 (malicious skill plugins) proves harder at 75-94% IR among judges with meaningful precision-recall balance, motivating complementary enforcement at Layers 1 and 3. Qwen2.5-14B achieves the best local balance (98% IR, approximately 10-20% FPR); a two-stage cascade (Qwen3.5-9B->GPT-4o-mini) achieves 91.9-92.6% IR with 1.9-6.7% FPR; a fully local cascade (Qwen3.5-9B->Qwen2.5-14B) achieves 94.7-95.6% IR with 6.0-9.7% FPR for data-sovereign deployments. An end-to-end pipeline evaluation (n=100) demonstrates that all four layers operate in concert with 96% IR and a total P50 latency of approximately 980 ms, of which the non-judge layers contribute only approximately 18 ms. Generalization to the external InjecAgent benchmark yields 99-100% interception, confirming robustness beyond our synthetic data.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper 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 6 of its 20 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 7 Mar 2026.
Builds on
6 of 20 references.
Closest ancestors · 1
Same direction, newest first
Other references · 5
- 2021Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Codecited by 8,053
- 2023AutoGen: Enabling Next-Gen LLM Applications via Multi-Agent Conversationcited by 1,906
- 2023Llama Guard: LLM-based Input-Output Safeguard for Human-AI Conversationscited by 1,124
- 2022Ignore Previous Prompt: Attack Techniques For Language Modelscited by 760
- 2023NeMo Guardrails: A Toolkit for Controllable and Safe LLM Applications with Programmable Railscited by 347
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Security Attack and Defense Strategies for Autonomous Agent Frameworks: A Layered Review with OpenClaw as a Case Study
- 2026Uncovering Security Threats and Architecting Defenses in Autonomous Agents: A Case Study of OpenClaw
- 2026A Security Analysis of the OpenClaw AI Agent Framework
- 2026Taming OpenClaw: Security Analysis and Mitigation of Autonomous LLM Agent Threats
- 2026Security of OpenClaw Agents: Fundamentals, Attacks, and Countermeasures
- 2026ClawSentry: A Progressive Multi-Tier Security Monitor for Safeguarding Autonomous LLM Agents
- 2026Clawed and Dangerous: Can We Trust Open Agentic Systems?
- 2026AgentWard: A Lifecycle Security Architecture for Autonomous AI Agents