# NOMOS: Compiling Written Policies into Statically Verified Tool-Call Gates for LLM Agents

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.11030 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.11030/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Software engineering coding agents, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use.
- Builds on 27 of its 35 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 8 Oct 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [Software engineering coding agents](https://mlsanity.com/agents/software-engineering-coding-agents/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 27 of 27)

- [Universal and Transferable Adversarial Attacks on Aligned Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.15043/) (2023)
- [Not what you've signed up for: Compromising Real-World LLM-Integrated Applications with Indirect Prompt Injection](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.12173/) (2023)
- [τ-bench: A Benchmark for Tool-Agent-User Interaction in Real-World Domains](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.12045/) (2024)
- [Llama Guard: LLM-based Input-Output Safeguard for Human-AI Conversations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.06674/) (2023)
- [τ2-Bench: Evaluating Conversational Agents in a Dual-Control Environment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.07982/) (2025)
- [The Instruction Hierarchy: Training LLMs to Prioritize Privileged Instructions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.13208/) (2024)
- [StruQ: Defending Against Prompt Injection with Structured Queries](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.06363/) (2024)
- [Formalizing and Benchmarking Prompt Injection Attacks and Defenses](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.12815/) (2023)
- [Defeating Prompt Injections by Design](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.18813/) (2025)
- [Defending Against Indirect Prompt Injection Attacks With Spotlighting](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.14720/) (2024)
- [AgentSpec: Customizable Runtime Enforcement for Safe and Reliable LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.18666/) (2025)
- [SecAlign: Defending Against Prompt Injection with Preference Optimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.05451/) (2024)
- [ShieldAgent: Shielding Agents via Verifiable Safety Policy Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.22738/) (2025)
- [AgentDojo: A Dynamic Environment to Evaluate Prompt Injection Attacks and Defenses for LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.13352/) (2024)
- [Progent: Securing AI Agents with Privilege Control](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.11703/) (2025)
- [IsolateGPT: An Execution Isolation Architecture for LLM-Based Agentic Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.04960/) (2024)
- [GuardAgent: Safeguard LLM Agents by a Guard Agent via Knowledge-Enabled Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.09187/) (2024)
- [Design Patterns for Securing LLM Agents against Prompt Injections](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.08837/) (2025)
- [VeriGuard: Enhancing LLM Agent Safety via Verified Code Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.05156/) (2025)
- [Formal Policy Enforcement for Real-World Agentic Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.16708/) (2026)
- [Towards Enforcing Company Policy Adherence in Agentic Workflows](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.16459/) (2025)
- [Solver-Aided Verification of Policy Compliance in Tool-Augmented LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.20449/) (2026)
- [Meta SecAlign: A Secure Foundation LLM Against Prompt Injection Attacks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.02735/) (2025)
- [Reason Less, Verify More: Deterministic Gates Recover a Silent Policy-Violation Failure Mode in Tool-Using LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.07405/) (2026)
- [PolicyGuard: A Dialogue-Grounded Sub-Agent Verifier for Policy Adherence in LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.29225/) (2026)
- [Autoformalization of Agent Instructions into Policy-as-Code](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.26649/) (2026)
- [Beyond Attack-Success Rate: Action-Graded Severity Scale for Tool-Using AI Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.07474/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Tool-using LLM agents violate the policies they are deployed to enforce, often silently. Prior defenses hand-write rules, query an LLM verifier per action, or compile policies through heavyweight formal machinery. Naive compilation fails: extracted rules block the tool satisfying their own precondition, or read arguments their tool lacks. NOMOS, a four-pass compiler, turns a natural-language policy into a deterministic tool-call gate; static verification with tool-schema-level checks alone (no prover, solver, or LLM) repairs or rejects 37% (airline) and 13% (retail) of candidates, without which most shipped rules are inoperable. Replaying compiled rules over undefended transcripts flags bindings that refuse legitimate work (a development binding refused 95.9% of task-passing calls); no evaluation binding is flagged. On τ2-bench the gate cuts violations of reference-encoded clauses among state-changing calls from 66.3% to 2.6% (airline) and 30.8% to 6.9% (retail), raising airline task success significantly for 2 ≤ k ≤ 4; a 26B on-premise compilation is not significantly worse than hand-written or frontier-compiled rules. Unlike AgentDojo's shipped defenses, it reaches a zero attack success rate (ASR) on banking, where nine attack families collapse onto three structural rules. On the other three suites its ASR is at most 3.6%, from goals with no tool call to govern and one write admitted by a binding weaker than its clause; a second agent model, Llama-3.3-70B, reproduces the effect on both benchmarks. Decisions take microseconds without an LLM call, at a domain-dependent benign-utility cost; compilation runs on-premise on open-weight gemma-4-26B.