mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Methods for Formal Verification of Agent Skills: Three Layers Toward a Mechanically Checkable Capability-Containment Proof

arXiv 2605.23951 ↗First posted 9 May 2026cs.AI cs.LO cs.MAcited by 1

On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Agent skill learning and evolution

Abstract (arXiv)

The companion paper introduced a four-level verification lattice on agent-skill manifests (unverified, declared, tested, formal) and left the top level aspirational. This paper closes that gap. We give a precise semantics for skill behaviour faithful to how a skill is consumed by an LLM-driven runtime (a deterministic script-side reachable through a non-deterministic LLM-side), state the verification problem as a capability-containment property over that semantics, and present three composable methods that together raise a skill from declared or tested to formal: (1) sound static capability-containment analysis of the script-side via abstract interpretation over a small effect lattice; (2) a refinement type system for tool-call envelopes that mechanically rejects any call whose statically-inferred capability is not in the manifest's declared set; (3) SMT-bounded model checking against the parent paper's biconditional correctness criterion, with the bound chosen so any counter-example fitting the runtime's transaction-buffer horizon is exhibited as a concrete trace. We prove the three layers composed soundly cover the parent paper's threat model modulo a single residual (the LLM's freedom to refuse to act) that the parent paper's runtime biconditional catches at session boundary. The methods reuse existing well-engineered tools (Z3, Semgrep, CodeQL, refinement-type checkers, mechanised proof assistants) rather than asking operators to build new ones, and the proof-carrying artifact extends the existing SKILL.md convention. All three methods plus the bundle producer and re-checker ship as zero-dependency JavaScript modules in the open-source enclawed framework (https://github.com/metereconsulting/enclawed; project page https://www.enclawed.com/), with 53 unit tests and an end-to-end CLI demo on a sample skill.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Agent skill learning and evolution, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 6 of its 67 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 9 May 2026.

Builds on

6 of 67 references.

References · 6

  1. 2022Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedbackcited by 3,050
  2. 2023SmoothLLM: Defending Large Language Models Against Jailbreaking Attackscited by 469
  3. 2024AgentHarm: A Benchmark for Measuring Harmfulness of LLM Agentscited by 437
  4. 2024AgentPoison: Red-teaming LLM Agents via Poisoning Memory or Knowledge Basescited by 429
  5. 2023GenAI Against Humanity: Nefarious Applications of Generative Artificial Intelligence and Large Language Modelscited by 42
  6. 2026Skills as Verifiable Artifacts: A Trust Schema and a Biconditional Correctness Criterion for Human-in-the-Loop Agent Runtimescited by 3

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Formal Skill: Programmable Runtime Skills for Efficient and Accurate LLM Agents
  2. 2026Evidence-Calibrated Runtime Reconstruction for Agent Skills Across Heterogeneous Coding Agents
  3. 2026SkillSentry: Reliable Skill Execution for LLM Agents via Runtime Assurance
  4. 2026Verification as an Architectural Layer for LLM Agents: A V-Model Design, and a Pilot Study of Its Deterministic Core
  5. 2026Agentic Model Checking
  6. 2026VASO: Formally Verifiable Self-Evolving Skills for Physical AI Agents
  7. 2026HEXIS: Compiling Agent Skills into Extended Finite State Machines
  8. 2026SLBench: Evaluating How LLM Agents Follow Logical Relations in Skills