mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Continuous Process-Level Evaluation for Evolving Enterprise AI Agent Skills

arXiv 2610.01833 ↗First posted 1 Oct 2026cs.AI cs.SEcited by 0

On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Agent skill learning and evolution also fits: Software engineering coding agents

Abstract (arXiv)

Enterprise AI agent skills evolve as tool APIs, models, and specifications change, yet final-output evaluation can miss process-level behavioral drift. We present a continuous evaluation framework combining outcome-level and process-level checks, applied to Revenue and Productivity variants of a Business Value Determination skill in an enterprise Value Aware Resiliency system. The framework independently computes per-run ground truth, materializes reusable template tests, and evaluates tool selection, arguments, execution order, and database integrity through programmatic checks and a narrowly scoped LLM judge. We evaluate 240 trials across two skills, two specification variants, two agent harnesses, and three models. Of 175 trials passing all applicable final numerical checks, 162 (92.6 percent; Wilson 95 percent CI: 87.7-95.6 percent) contained another evaluator-detected deviation. Under a broader seven-check final-state definition, 151 of 164 passing runs (92.1 percent; 95 percent CI: 86.9-95.3 percent) still violated a trajectory check. Dependency attribution reduced a mean of 6.34 failed checks per run to 2.65 roots. Specification sensitivity varied by model and harness, with exploratory bootstrap interaction intervals excluding zero for all three Revenue comparisons and one of three Productivity comparisons. Runtime-resolved templates provided reusable regression coverage across the evaluated configurations; longitudinal validation under actual API evolution remains future work.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Agent skill learning and evolution, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 10 of its 12 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 1 Oct 2026.

Builds on

10 of 12 references.

References · 10

  1. 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,393
  2. 2023Let's Verify Step by Stepcited by 3,598
  3. 2023Large Language Models are not Fair Evaluatorscited by 1,050
  4. 2025Why Do Multi-Agent LLM Systems Fail?cited by 559
  5. 2026AgentRx: Diagnosing AI Agent Failures from Execution Trajectoriescited by 53
  6. 2025AgentArch: A Comprehensive Benchmark to Evaluate Agent Architectures in Enterprisecited by 8
  7. 2026AgentEval: DAG-Structured Step-Level Evaluation for Agentic Workflows with Error Propagation Trackingcited by 8
  8. 2025Beyond Task Completion: An Assessment Framework for Evaluating Agentic AI Systemscited by 7
  9. 2025Nexus: Execution-Grounded Multi-Agent Test Oracle Synthesiscited by 4
  10. 2026GroundEval: A Deterministic Replacement for LLM-as-Judge in Stateful Agent Evaluationcited by 4

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Evaluating Skills, Not Just Agents: Agentic Continuous Evaluation of Skills
  2. 2025Beyond Accuracy: A Multi-Dimensional Framework for Evaluating Enterprise Agentic AI Systems
  3. 2026EnterpriseVal: Quantifying the Efficacy, Reliability and Value of Generative AI in the Enterprise
  4. 2026AlphaEval: Evaluating Agents in Production
  5. 2026LH-Bench: Skill-Grounded Evaluation of Long-Horizon Agents on Subjective Enterprise Tasks
  6. 2026AEVAL: From Anecdotal to Deterministic Testing for Agentic Skill Workflows
  7. 2026Towards More Standardized AI Evaluation: From Models to Agents
  8. 2025Towards a Standard, Enterprise-Relevant Agentic AI Benchmark: Lessons from 5.5 billion tokens' worth of agentic AI evaluations