# Sentry: Learning to Recover from LLM Agent Failures at Test Time

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.02994 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.02994/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Agent skill learning and evolution, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use.
- Builds on 29 of its 33 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 2 Oct 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [Agent skill learning and evolution](https://mlsanity.com/agents/agent-skill-learning-and-evolution/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 29 of 29)

- [ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.03629/) (2022)
- [Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.11366/) (2023)
- [Toolformer: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Use Tools](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.04761/) (2023)
- [Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.17651/) (2023)
- [SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.06770/) (2023)
- [Voyager: An Open-Ended Embodied Agent with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.16291/) (2023)
- [τ-bench: A Benchmark for Tool-Agent-User Interaction in Real-World Domains](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.12045/) (2024)
- [WebShop: Towards Scalable Real-World Web Interaction with Grounded Language Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2207.01206/) (2022)
- [Mind2Web: Towards a Generalist Agent for the Web](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.06070/) (2023)
- [ExpeL: LLM Agents Are Experiential Learners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.10144/) (2023)
- [CRITIC: Large Language Models Can Self-Correct with Tool-Interactive Critiquing](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.11738/) (2023)
- [Why Do Multi-Agent LLM Systems Fail?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.13657/) (2025)
- [Terminal-Bench: Benchmarking Agents on Hard, Realistic Tasks in Command Line Interfaces](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.11868/) (2026)
- [GEPA: Reflective Prompt Evolution Can Outperform Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.19457/) (2025)
- [AppWorld: A Controllable World of Apps and People for Benchmarking Interactive Coding Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.18901/) (2024)
- [Agentic Context Engineering: Evolving Contexts for Self-Improving Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.04618/) (2025)
- [Agent Workflow Memory](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.07429/) (2024)
- [ReasoningBank: Scaling Agent Self-Evolving with Reasoning Memory](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.25140/) (2025)
- [Where LLM Agents Fail and How They can Learn From Failures](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.25370/) (2025)
- [Self-Harness: Harnesses That Improve Themselves](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.09498/) (2026)
- [AutoHarness: improving LLM agents by automatically synthesizing a code harness](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.03329/) (2026)
- [From Failed Trajectories to Reliable LLM Agents: Diagnosing and Repairing Harness Flaws](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.06324/) (2026)
- [Adapting the Interface, Not the Model: Runtime Harness Adaptation for Deterministic LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.22166/) (2026)
- [AgentGuard: Runtime Verification of AI Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.23864/) (2025)
- [Wink: Recovering from Misbehaviors in Coding Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.17037/) (2026)
- [AgentForesight: Online Auditing for Early Failure Prediction in Multi-Agent Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.08715/) (2026)
- [AgentFixer: From Failure Detection to Fix Recommendations in LLM Agentic Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.29848/) (2026)
- [Do Self-Evolving Agents Forget? Capability Degradation and Preservation in Lifelong LLM Agent Adaptation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.09315/) (2026)
- [Real-Time Detection and Repair of LLM Agent Failures](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.02464/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

LLM agents often fail mid-task due to invalid tool calls, repeated actions, or poorly grounded reasoning, and learning from these failures is a path to reliability. We find that how failure knowledge reaches the agent matters as much as what it contains. Failure lessons are conditional: kept in the agent's context, they misfire when their failure is absent, and removing them from an evolving playbook improves performance. Runtime interventions, in contrast, act only when a failure occurs but do not learn from their repairs. We argue that failure knowledge is conditional knowledge and should be conditionally exposed, and instantiate this principle in Sentry, a failure-management layer that runs alongside the agent. When Sentry detects a failure, it retrieves matching lessons from an external playbook to guide recovery, verifies without access to task rewards whether the agent recovered, and stores a new lesson only if it did; the full playbook never enters the agent's context. Across multiple agentic benchmarks, Sentry outperforms the strongest runtime-intervention baseline on every benchmark, by 37% on average, and the strongest context-evolution baseline by 39% on the two benchmarks where both are evaluated; combining Sentry with context evolution yields further gains. Learned lessons transfer to held-out tasks, and controlled experiments show that exposing the full playbook to the agent lowers performance even when relevant lessons remain available on demand.