A Trace-Based Assurance Framework for Agentic AI Orchestration: Contracts, Testing, and Governance
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Agent threats, guardrails and governance
Abstract (arXiv)
In Agentic AI, Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used in the orchestration layer to coordinate multiple agents and to interact with external services, retrieval components, and shared memory. In this setting, failures are not limited to incorrect final outputs. They also arise from long-horizon interaction, stochastic decisions, and external side effects (such as API calls, database writes, and message sends). Common failures include non-termination, role drift, propagation of unsupported claims, and attacks via untrusted context or external channels. This paper presents an assurance framework for such Agentic AI systems. Executions are instrumented as Message-Action Traces (MAT) with explicit step and trace contracts. Contracts provide machine-checkable verdicts, localize the first violating step, and support deterministic replay. The framework includes stress testing, formulated as a budgeted counterexample search over bounded perturbations. It also supports structured fault injection at service, retrieval, and memory boundaries to assess containment under realistic operational faults and degraded conditions. Finally, governance is treated as a runtime component, enforcing per-agent capability limits and action mediation (allow, rewrite, block) at the language-to-action boundary. To support comparative evaluations across stochastic seeds, models, and orchestration configurations, the paper defines trace-based metrics for task success, termination reliability, contract compliance, factuality indicators, containment rate, and governance outcome distributions. More broadly, the framework is intended as a common abstraction to support testing and evaluation of multi-agent LLM systems, and to facilitate reproducible comparison across orchestration designs and configurations.
Key facts. Cited by 8 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Agent threats, guardrails and governance, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 16 of its 27 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 18 Mar 2026.
Builds on
16 of 27 references.
Closest ancestors · 4
Same direction, newest first
- 2025WASP: Benchmarking Web Agent Security Against Prompt Injection Attacks22 Apr
- 2024AgentHarm: A Benchmark for Measuring Harmfulness of LLM Agents11 Oct
- 2024AgentDojo: A Dynamic Environment to Evaluate Prompt Injection Attacks and Defenses for LLM Agents19 Jun
- 2024InjecAgent: Benchmarking Indirect Prompt Injections in Tool-Integrated Large Language Model Agents5 Mar
Other references · 12
- 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,626
- 2021Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Codecited by 8,320
- 2024HarmBench: A Standardized Evaluation Framework for Automated Red Teaming and Robust Refusalcited by 1,429
- 2023AgentBench: Evaluating LLMs as Agentscited by 1,267
- 2023GAIA: a benchmark for General AI Assistantscited by 1,128
- 2025Why Do Multi-Agent LLM Systems Fail?cited by 604
- 2023Ragas: Automated Evaluation of Retrieval Augmented Generationcited by 418
- 2023NeMo Guardrails: A Toolkit for Controllable and Safe LLM Applications with Programmable Railscited by 365
- 2023Benchmarking and Defending Against Indirect Prompt Injection Attacks on Large Language Modelscited by 264
- 2025Measuring Agents in Productioncited by 37
- 2017Chaos Engineeringcited by 19
- 2018A Survey of Challenges for Runtime Verification from Advanced Application Domains (Beyond Software)cited by 9
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 8.
8 papers.
- 2026Temporary Authority, Permanent Effects: Commit-Time Authorization for LLM Agentscited by 18
- 2026Beyond Task Success: An Evidence-Synthesis Framework for Evaluating, Governing, and Orchestrating Agentic AIcited by 2
- 2026Provable Coordination for LLM Agents via Message Sequence Chartscited by 1
- 2026Causal Past Logic for Runtime Verification of Distributed LLM Agent Workflowscited by 1
- 2026Silence Is Endorsement: Verification-Status Laundering in LLM Agent Pipelinescited by 1
- 2026Discriminating Fixture Coverage in Agent-Infrastructure Verification Suitescited by 0
- 2026Pollard: Governed Semantic Execution Trees for Framework-Independent AI Agent Control and Replaycited by 0
- 2026AgentStripes: An Evidence-Graded Maturity Model for AI Agentscited by 0
- 2026AgentStripes: An Evidence-Graded Maturity Model for AI Agents13 Oct 2026
- 2026Pollard: Governed Semantic Execution Trees for Framework-Independent AI Agent Control and Replay12 Oct 2026
- 2026Discriminating Fixture Coverage in Agent-Infrastructure Verification Suites2 Oct 2026
- 2026Silence Is Endorsement: Verification-Status Laundering in LLM Agent Pipelines25 Jul 2026
- 2026Temporary Authority, Permanent Effects: Commit-Time Authorization for LLM Agents11 Jul 2026
- 2026Causal Past Logic for Runtime Verification of Distributed LLM Agent Workflows20 May 2026
- 2026Provable Coordination for LLM Agents via Message Sequence Charts19 Apr 2026
- 2026Beyond Task Success: An Evidence-Synthesis Framework for Evaluating, Governing, and Orchestrating Agentic AI18 Apr 2026
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Engineering Reliable Commit Gates for Agentic AI: Cost-Aware Verification Portfolios under Common-Mode Data Failures
- 2026A Policy Algebra for Trust-Preserving Agentic AI Execution
- 2026Securing Agentic AI: From Per-Action Checks to Trajectory Assurance
- 2026Trust Is Not a Score: Runtime Assurance Contracts for High-Risk AI Agents
- 2026TriCEGAR: A Trace-Driven Abstraction Mechanism for Agentic AI
- 2026SARC: A Governance-by-Architecture Framework for Agentic AI Systems
- 2026Beyond Component Testing: Validating Agentic AI Systems
- 2026Runtime Governance for Agentic AI: Action-Boundary Control with Trusted Provenance and Fail-Closed Execution