From Proposal to Verified Effect: Praxa, an Evidence-Bound Harness for Governed AI Agent Execution
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Large-language-model agents can propose and execute actions, but proposal, authority, dispatch, verified external effect, and serving promotion are different claims. We present Praxa, an agent harness that represents these states explicitly through deterministic admission, brokered execution, external read-back, reconciliation, and reviewed promotion. We report four evidence lanes. First, an author-run repository-local audit at a pinned revision passed 1,027/1,027 unit tests and 89/89 Workerd tests, instrumented all 363 expected source files, and met four coverage floors; raw per-test transcripts and independent reproduction are unavailable. Second, in a provider-backed Terminal-Bench Core 0.1.1 pilot across 12 curated tasks, baseline and reliability-layer arms each passed 17/36 strict trials. The reliability layer used 37.49% more input and 50.73% more output tokens, so the pilot does not support superiority. Third, in a post-debug, two-order coordination-proxy development comparison, baseline and a source-authored candidate each completed 180/180 trials with equal measured accuracy, full hermetic crash recovery, and zero protected violations. The candidate used 37.11% fewer tokens, 33.84% lower estimated endpoint cost, and 11.63% fewer steps; this does not establish improved quality, latency, or production behavior. Fourth, deployed source/configuration evidence shows bounded reflection, recall accounting, memory compilation, and tool-health paths, but no production outcome lift. Praxa's supported contribution is an evidence-bound architecture that makes authority-to-effect transitions explicit and testable. Current evidence does not establish adversarial security, production safety, general specialist superiority, autonomous recursive optimization, or user benefit.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 16 of its 36 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 27 Jul 2026.
Builds on
16 of 36 references.
References · 16
- 2022ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Modelscited by 8,695
- 2021Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Codecited by 8,320
- 2023Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learningcited by 4,276
- 2023Toolformer: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Use Toolscited by 4,182
- 2023MetaGPT: Meta Programming for A Multi-Agent Collaborative Frameworkcited by 1,808
- 2024SWE-agent: Agent-Computer Interfaces Enable Automated Software Engineeringcited by 1,737
- 2024τ-bench: A Benchmark for Tool-Agent-User Interaction in Real-World Domainscited by 1,402
- 2023AgentBench: Evaluating LLMs as Agentscited by 1,267
- 2025Why Do Multi-Agent LLM Systems Fail?cited by 604
- 2026Terminal-Bench: Benchmarking Agents on Hard, Realistic Tasks in Command Line Interfacescited by 585
- 2023Identifying the Risks of LM Agents with an LM-Emulated Sandboxcited by 548
- 2024Automated Design of Agentic Systemscited by 407
4 more
- 2025Defeating Prompt Injections by Designcited by 297
- 2023AI Control: Improving Safety Despite Intentional Subversioncited by 229
- 2025Progent: Securing AI Agents with Privilege Controlcited by 141
- 2026Recursive Harness Self-Improvementcited by 32
Built on by
Not cited yet.