Stop Means Stop: Measuring and Repairing the Enforcement Gap in Agent-Framework Control Primitives
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Agent threats, guardrails and governance
Abstract (arXiv)
Production LLM-agent frameworks ship control primitives -- human-in-the-loop approval gates, run cancellation, and execution timeouts -- whose names and documentation imply barrier semantics: while a run is paused, cancelled, or timed out, no gated side effect executes. This contract holds on none of six widely used open-source frameworks. Model-free differential probes isolate a recurring sibling leak -- an approval gate suspends its own branch while a sibling's effect executes during the pause, defeating rejection -- in every framework shipping a pre-execution gate (five of six, four execution models, two language runtimes), and confirm replay double-execution, cancellation orphans, and timeout zombies. The hazard is reachable: frontier models emit the leak-triggering plan shape at rates up to 14%, and live models driving unmodified frameworks leak 215 of 1,200 runs (P(leak | emitted)=1.00); on naturalistic tau-bench episodes models serialize writes -- the everyday gap is latent -- while injection induces it deterministically and a 13-incident public corpus corroborates the replay and cancellation failures. We repair the gaps with SOUNDGATE, an environment-external Rust gate through which every side effect must be admitted, enforcing hold-until-decided, reject-cancels, dedup-on-replay, and fence-on-cancel under a stated complete-mediation contract, discharged for network egress by two kernel-enforced routes. The admission core is mechanically verified (Verus; TLA+/TLC to 7.5e7 states; TLAPS; Loom on the deployed Rust) and bridged to code by differential conformance over 1.2e7 operations with zero divergences. Under that contract SOUNDGATE blocks every measured violation on all six frameworks while releasing legitimate effects: gated tau-bench episodes complete with zero refusals at ~1 ms per write, and durable admission sustains ~12k admissions per second.
Key facts. Cited by 3 papers 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 15 of its 94 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 15 Jul 2026.
Builds on
15 of 94 references.
Closest ancestors · 5
Same direction, newest first
- 2026Atomicity for Agents: Exposing, Exploiting, and Mitigating TOCTOU Vulnerabilities in Browser-Use Agents28 Feb
- 2025Defeating Prompt Injections by Design24 Mar
- 2025AgentSpec: Customizable Runtime Enforcement for Safe and Reliable LLM Agents24 Mar
- 2024IsolateGPT: An Execution Isolation Architecture for LLM-Based Agentic Systems8 Mar
- 2023Identifying the Risks of LM Agents with an LM-Emulated Sandbox25 Sep
Other references · 10
- 2023Not what you've signed up for: Compromising Real-World LLM-Integrated Applications with Indirect Prompt Injectioncited by 1,339
- 2023MemGPT: Towards LLMs as Operating Systemscited by 1,295
- 2024τ-bench: A Benchmark for Tool-Agent-User Interaction in Real-World Domainscited by 1,280
- 2023AgentBench: Evaluating LLMs as Agentscited by 1,211
- 2025Why Do Multi-Agent LLM Systems Fail?cited by 559
- 2023AI Control: Improving Safety Despite Intentional Subversioncited by 207
- 2024AIOS: LLM Agent Operating Systemcited by 94
- 2025SagaLLM: Context Management, Validation, and Transaction Guarantees for Multi-Agent LLM Planningcited by 58
- 2026Atomix: Timely, Transactional Tool Use for Reliable Agentic Workflowscited by 27
- 2026Verified Detection and Prevention of Concurrency Anomalies in Multi-Agent Large Language Model Systemscited by 5
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 3.
3 papers.
- 2026Resume Means Resume: A Machine-Checked Conformance Contract for Checkpoint, Interrupt, and Resume Semantics in Workflow Persistence Layerscited by 2
- 2026Authorization Revocation for Long-Running AI Agents: Root-Scoped Quiescence under Delegation and Asynchronous Executioncited by 1
- 2026Authorization for Self-Modifying AI Agent Populations: Conserving Authority across Replacement, Forking, and Rollbackcited by 0
- 2026Authorization for Self-Modifying AI Agent Populations: Conserving Authority across Replacement, Forking, and Rollback29 Sep 2026
- 2026Authorization Revocation for Long-Running AI Agents: Root-Scoped Quiescence under Delegation and Asynchronous Execution18 Sep 2026
- 2026Resume Means Resume: A Machine-Checked Conformance Contract for Checkpoint, Interrupt, and Resume Semantics in Workflow Persistence Layers4 Aug 2026
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Designing for Doubt: The Case for Informed Abstention in Autonomous Agents
- 2026Jailbreak Context Lingers: Divergent Safety Routing and Its Cross-Task Predictability in Tool Agents
- 2026Boundary-State Control for Tool-Using Language-Model Agents: Commit-Time Consistency under State Drift
- 2026LACUNA: Safe Agents as Recursive Program Holes
- 2026Lingering Authority: Revocable Resource-and-Effect Capabilities for Coding Agents
- 2026VIGIL: Runtime Enforcement of Behavioral Specifications in AI Agent Skills
- 2026Why LLM Agents Collapse Without Oversight: The Enforcement Gap as the Mechanism Behind Emergence World Failures
- 2026Beyond Approved Actions: Runtime Validation of Persistent Outcomes in Agent Workflows