The Harness as the Only Mutable Surface: Compliance-Bounded Self-Evolution of LLM Agents in Credit Pipelines, with a Measured Admission Gate
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Software engineering coding agents also fits: Financial trading and forecasting agents
also in 1 more
Abstract (arXiv)
Self-improving LLM agents can adapt a credit pipeline to a changed rule, but an agent that rewrites itself destroys the artefact a supervisor reviews: a named change, a recorded test, an approval. We argue that self-evolution is reviewable only if it is confined to the runtime harness (instruction text, tool-call logic and primitive composition) while model weights stay fixed, so that every adaptation is a diff with a cause and a test attached. We give a dual-loop engine built on that bound, with one admission gate that writes a hash-chained record before deployment, and we measure the gate in simulation, with a simulated agent and a seeded-search proposer rather than language models. Across three families of supervisory re-interpretation at three severities, 10 seeds each, the gated loop admitted 144 of 7,449 candidate changes, none of which worsened error on held-out history, and restored the false-positive rate to the oracle level without raising missed flags in every low- and mid-severity cell. With the gate replaced by the check an unbounded system applies (fewer errors visible in recent traces), the same loops admitted 309 harmful changes and left missed flags above 10% in 49 of 90 runs: false positives fell because the screen was loosened. Evaluated on pre-shift labels, the gate rejected every candidate, so a re-interpretation must be encoded as a rule that relabels history. Parametric and scope shifts were repaired locally, a structural one only by primitive replacement; at the highest structural severity the gate's fixed tolerance blocked the correct replacement in half the seeds. We map the mechanisms to the EU AI Act's provisions for high-risk credit scoring and note that the April 2026 US model-risk guidance excludes agentic AI from its scope.
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 9 of its 17 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 7 Oct 2026.
Builds on
9 of 17 references.
Closest ancestors · 2
Same direction, newest first
- 2026Self-Harness: Harnesses That Improve Themselves8 Jun
- 2025EvoAgentX: An Automated Framework for Evolving Agentic Workflows4 Jul
Other references · 7
- 2023Promptbreeder: Self-Referential Self-Improvement Via Prompt Evolutioncited by 521
- 2025GEPA: Reflective Prompt Evolution Can Outperform Reinforcement Learningcited by 449
- 2025Darwin Godel Machine: Open-Ended Evolution of Self-Improving Agentscited by 294
- 2025A Comprehensive Survey of Self-Evolving AI Agents: A New Paradigm Bridging Foundation Models and Lifelong Agentic Systemscited by 177
- 2025A Survey of Self-Evolving Agents: What, When, How, and Where to Evolve on the Path to Artificial Super Intelligencecited by 155
- 2026HarnessX: A Composable, Adaptive, and Evolvable Agent Harness Foundrycited by 37
- 2024G"odel Agent: A Self-Referential Agent Framework for Recursive Self-Improvementcited by 27
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Auditing Self-Evolution in Financial Agents: Capability Gains, Security Drift, and Execution-Interface Mismatch
- 2026VERSE: Verified Self-Evolving Optimizer for Agent Harnesses
- 2026Credit Without Ground Truth: Auditing Step-Level Credit Assignment in LLM Agents Against Executed Replay
- 2026LLM-as-a-Judge Is Not an Oracle: Why Self-Improving Agents Need Deterministic Guardrails
- 2026EvoUndo: Recoverability-Constrained Self-Evolution for LLM Agent Harnesses
- 2026Who Grades the Grader? Co-Evolving Evaluation Metrics and Skills for Self-Improving LLM Agents
- 2026Self-Authored Verification Is Unreliable in Heuristic Self-Improving Agents
- 2026Coverage, Not Credit: Failure-Credit Routing of Zeroth-Order Perturbation Budgets Does Not Improve On-Pool Sample Efficiency for LLM Agents