Verification as an Architectural Layer for LLM Agents: A V-Model Design, and a Pilot Study of Its Deterministic Core
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Software engineering coding agents
Abstract (arXiv)
Large language model (LLM) agents built on the ReAct pattern concentrate four responsibilities in one model: selecting a strategy, choosing each action, formatting it, and judging whether the result is adequate. Nothing outside the generative loop can reject its output, so an agent that cannot make progress does not report failure; it runs until an external budget stops it. We propose treating verification as an architectural layer by adapting the V-model from software engineering: specification levels descend from requirements to individual steps, each level is paired with a dedicated verifier, a deterministic controller enforces every verdict, and only verification outcomes write to memory, so a rejection localizes the level that introduced the fault and an agent halts by declining rather than by exhaustion. Each verifier separates a zero-cost deterministic gate from an optional LLM judge, so the contribution and cost of each can be measured independently. We report a pilot implementing the acceptance- and unit-level verifier pairs, comparing five configurations that share one executor, tool set, and scorer and differ only in verification, on the four-hop stratum of MuSiQue with an 8B-parameter backbone. Across 47 executions, the two unverified configurations answered none of ten questions, every run ending at a step cap or provider token limit; the verified configuration without a planner answered eight and abstained on the rest. Deterministic gates produced eight of the nine observed corrections at zero marginal cost, and planning degraded performance once verification was present. These results characterize termination behavior, not accuracy at scale; we outline a twelve-month plan to complete and evaluate the full architecture, including the integration-level pair the pilot omits.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Software engineering coding agents, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 36 of its 48 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 25 Sep 2026.
Builds on
36 of 48 references.
Closest ancestors · 2
Same direction, newest first
- 2024SWE-agent: Agent-Computer Interfaces Enable Automated Software Engineering6 May
- 2023AutoGen: Enabling Next-Gen LLM Applications via Multi-Agent Conversation16 Aug
Other references · 34
- 2022Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Modelscited by 12,302
- 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,393
- 2022ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Modelscited by 8,355
- 2021Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Codecited by 8,053
- 2022Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Modelscited by 5,601
- 2016SQuAD: 100,000+ Questions for Machine Comprehension of Textcited by 4,115
- 2023Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learningcited by 4,064
- 2020Dense Passage Retrieval for Open-Domain Question Answeringcited by 3,779
- 2018HotpotQA: A Dataset for Diverse, Explainable Multi-hop Question Answeringcited by 3,686
- 2023Let's Verify Step by Stepcited by 3,598
- 2023Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedbackcited by 3,317
- 2023SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?cited by 3,193
22 more
- 2023Tree of Thoughts: Deliberate Problem Solving with Large Language Modelscited by 3,155
- 2022Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedbackcited by 2,950
- 2022Survey of Hallucination in Natural Language Generationcited by 2,056
- 2023Is Your Code Generated by ChatGPT Really Correct? Rigorous Evaluation of Large Language Models for Code Generationcited by 1,332
- 2024τ-bench: A Benchmark for Tool-Agent-User Interaction in Real-World Domainscited by 1,280
- 2023AgentBench: Evaluating LLMs as Agentscited by 1,211
- 2022Measuring and Narrowing the Compositionality Gap in Language Modelscited by 1,054
- 2023Large Language Models Cannot Self-Correct Reasoning Yetcited by 965
- 2023Teaching Large Language Models to Self-Debugcited by 963
- 2022Interleaving Retrieval with Chain-of-Thought Reasoning for Knowledge-Intensive Multi-Step Questionscited by 911
- 2021MuSiQue: Multihop Questions via Single-hop Question Compositioncited by 893
- 2023SelfCheckGPT: Zero-Resource Black-Box Hallucination Detection for Generative Large Language Modelscited by 787
- 2023Large Language Models for Software Engineering: A Systematic Literature Reviewcited by 389
- 2023Large Language Models for Software Engineering: Survey and Open Problemscited by 178
- 2023ReWOO: Decoupling Reasoning from Observations for Efficient Augmented Language Modelscited by 174
- 2023ADaPT: As-Needed Decomposition and Planning with Language Modelscited by 172
- 2026Why Reasoning Fails to Plan: A Planning-Centric Analysis of Long-Horizon Decision Making in LLM Agentscited by 22
- 2025AttnTrace: Contextual Attribution of Prompt Injection and Knowledge Corruptioncited by 5
- 2026Think Locally, Explain Globally: Graph-Guided LLM Investigations via Local Reasoning and Belief Propagationcited by 3
- 2023An Exploratory Study of V-Model in Building ML-Enabled Software: A Systems Engineering Perspectivecited by 2
- 2024Experiences in Using the V-Model as a Framework for Applied Doctoral Researchcited by 1
- 2025Reason-Plan-ReAct: A Reasoner-Planner Supervising a ReAct Executor for Complex Enterprise Taskscited by 1
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Agentic Model Checking
- 2026Automating Formal Verification with Agent-Guided Tree Search
- 2025The Dual-State Architecture for Reliable LLM Agents
- 2026Grading the Graders: Verification Autonomy Levels (L0-L5) for LLM Reasoning
- 2026Methods for Formal Verification of Agent Skills: Three Layers Toward a Mechanically Checkable Capability-Containment Proof
- 2026From Natural Language Policies to Executable Obligations: A Verification Harness for Dependable In-Car LLM Agents
- 2026Verified Tool Calls Improve LLM Agent Reliability Under Non-Atomic Failures
- 2026Fewer Assumptions by Design: A Reusable Skill for LLM-Assisted Verus Verification