mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Agentic Harnesses: LLM-Driven Verification Layers for Robot Autonomy

arXiv 2608.09857 ↗First posted 10 Aug 2026cs.RO cs.AIcited by 0

On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Agent threats, guardrails and governance

Abstract (arXiv)

Advances in advanced artificial intelligence tools have sparked research in robot autonomy, but the development of such systems has largely focused on execution rather than verifying the feasibility actions planning models propose. Like general-purpose LLMs, robotics planning models carry risks: biased toward user-specified goals, they may suggest actions misaligned with scientific ethics, they may be unsafe due to an inability to "remember" prior safety risks, or they may be vulnerable to adversarial attacks on the autonomy ecosystem. We propose a LLM-driven verification layer between planning and execution to evaluate action permissibility. Our LLM-as-a-Judge ensemble combines chain-of-thought reasoning across models and synthesizes those expert judge outputs, mirroring a combination of a mixture of experts and self-consistency approach. This layer serves as middleware, gating plans from the server's planning module before they reach the MCP server and therefore the robot's low-level controls: plans are approved, rejected for reformulation, or escalated for human review. With this system, we achieve near 85% precision across accept/escalate/reject categories 97% containment of adversarial attacks, with negligible errors between accepting and rejecting tasks, and errors mostly manifesting at the escalate boundary.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Agent threats, guardrails and governance, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 12 of its 25 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 10 Aug 2026.

Builds on

12 of 25 references.

Closest ancestors · 2

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2025Agentic Misalignment: How LLMs Could Be Insider Threats5 Oct
  2. 2024R-Judge: Benchmarking Safety Risk Awareness for LLM Agents18 Jan

Other references · 10

  1. 2022Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Modelscited by 5,708
  2. 2022Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedbackcited by 3,050
  3. 2024LLM Evaluators Recognize and Favor Their Own Generationscited by 686
  4. 2023Better Zero-Shot Reasoning with Role-Play Promptingcited by 223
  5. 2017Hamilton-Jacobi Reachability: A Brief Overview and Recent Advancescited by 201
  6. 2024AutoRT: Embodied Foundation Models for Large Scale Orchestration of Robotic Agentscited by 87
  7. 2024Auto-Arena: Automating LLM Evaluations with Agent Peer Battles and Committee Discussionscited by 42
  8. 2025AgentsNet: Coordination and Collaborative Reasoning in Multi-Agent LLMscited by 31
  9. 2025Safety Aware Task Planning via Large Language Models in Roboticscited by 24
  10. 2026Using large language models for embodied planning introduces systematic safety riskscited by 5

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2025VerifyLLM: LLM-Based Pre-Execution Task Plan Verification for Robots
  2. 2025AuDeRe: Automated Strategy Decision and Realization in Robot Planning and Control via LLMs
  3. 2025Enhancing Reliability in LLM-Integrated Robotic Systems: A Unified Approach to Security and Safety
  4. 2026Agentic LLM Planning via Step-Wise PDDL Simulation: An Empirical Characterisation
  5. 2025Plan Verification for LLM-Based Embodied Task Completion Agents
  6. 2025Deception in LLMs: Self-Preservation and Autonomous Goals in Large Language Models
  7. 2026HEART: Coordination of Heterogeneous Expert Agents for Physically Grounded Robotic Task Planning
  8. 2024ConceptAgent: LLM-Driven Precondition Grounding and Tree Search for Robust Task Planning and Execution