AgentTrust: A Self-Improving Trust Layer for AI-Agent Actions
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Agent threats, guardrails and governance
Abstract (arXiv)
AI agents increasingly take consequential actions -- shell commands, cloud operations, and arbitrary tool-calls -- so a trust layer must decide, per action, whether to allow, warn, block, or escalate. We argue that the right way to reason about such a layer is by threat type. Lexical (fixed-signature) threats, where danger lives in a stable token, are decidable by deterministic rules; semantic (intent-dependent) threats, where a benign and a malicious action share the same surface, are out of reach for rules by construction. We make this concrete with a negative proof: a determined, hand-authored cloud rule pack lifts held-out accuracy only 48 to 56% overall and moves the semantic categories by 0pp (data_db 29 to 29, observability 59 to 59, supply_chain 50 to 50), while a strong LLM judge carries exactly those categories. We give the judge a self-learning capability: on a corpus that is mainly semantic attacks it nearly doubles rule accuracy (48% to 83.6-85.2%) with near-zero false-blocks, and this holds across two model providers. We turn this into a self-improving dual-store system: the judge distills a growing deterministic rule floor on lexical threats (cheaper over time) and feeds a guarded RAG memory on semantic threats (a verdict-cache fails -- surface-twins collapse to ~58% -- so a corroboration guard lifts semantic accuracy +13pp, 70 to 84). The result is what sets AgentTrust v2 apart from its static v1 predecessor: a trust layer that self-evolves from its own stream of decisions -- cheaper on the lexical class (it distils its own rules) and smarter on the semantic class (it accrues guarded precedent), while never hard-blocking a benign action. An end-to-end online replay shows the judge-call rate falling (50% to 44%) and judge-domain accuracy rising (71% to 80%), with 0 benign hard-blocks across 45,000 actions.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Agent threats, guardrails and governance, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 1 of its 2 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 7 Jun 2026.
Builds on
1 of 2 references.
References · 1
- 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,393
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Trustworthy Agentic AI: A Comprehensive Cybersecurity and Systems Survey on Threat Landscapes, Defense Architectures, and Open Challenges
- 2026Towards trustworthy agentic AI: a comprehensive survey of safety, robustness, privacy, and system security
- 2026SoK: The Attack Surface of Agentic AI - Tools and Autonomy
- 2026AgentRiskBOM: A Risk-Scoping Security Bill of Materials for Agentic AI Systems
- 2026Can Agents Trust Their Skills? Uncovering Unsafe Chains of Trust in Skill-Based LLM Agents
- 2026Connecting the Dots in Agentic AI Security: A Cross-Dimensional Threat Taxonomy, Evaluation Maturity, and Open Challenges
- 2026ClawLess: A Security Model of AI Agents
- 2026AgentTrust: Runtime Safety Evaluation and Interception for AI Agent Tool Use