{ "schema_version": 1, "builder_plan": { "scenario": "An agent reads external documents or tool responses that may contain malicious instructions.", "change": "Replay attacks and legitimate lookalikes in an isolated copy of your agent workflow.", "baseline": "Your existing checks with the same tasks, permissions, and tool responses.", "steps": [ "Locate the paper's implementation and check its license, model support, data needs, and hardware requirements. Stop here if you cannot obtain the required artifacts.", "Save a small set of representative product tasks and expected outcomes. Keep evaluation tasks out of any training or tuning, and choose quality and cost limits before running.", "Run the baseline and the proposed change on identical inputs. Keep other settings fixed and repeat paired runs to expose variation.", "Save per-task outputs, failures, timings, and all usage costs. Review regressions before expanding the test." ], "measure": "Successful attacks missed, legitimate actions blocked, detection delay, and review cost.", "decision": "Keep the change only if it meets your preselected quality and latency limits and improves the metric you care about after setup and operating costs. Otherwise retain the baseline. This is an exploration plan, not a validated recommendation." }, "builder_review": null, "arxiv_id": "2609.24165", "title": "APEXA: Execution-Integrity Enforcement for Multi-Agent LLM Automation of Synchrotron Data Reduction", "summary": "It replaces prompt-level safety instructions and transcript-based trust with a deterministic tool-layer check that only surfaces results backed by an executed tool call, plus a parser tolerant of cross-model tool-call format drift. Cost is engineering complexity in the tool layer and a modest latency overhead for validation; it runs on a single GPU or against API models since it is model-agnostic infrastructure, not training. It can fail if the guard's execution records are themselves spoofable, if legitimate results are incorrectly rejected (false positives blocking valid outputs), and the full 58-task benchmark has not yet been used for large-scale agent scoring, so end-to-end task success rates are unquantified.", "rationale": "The guard is cheap, model-agnostic middleware that any team running tool-calling agents on constrained infrastructure can adopt immediately, and the demonstrated fabrication failure mode it prevents is generic to production LLM agents.", "technique": "Deterministic execution-integrity guard for tool-using agents", "family": "seguranca_e_guardrails", "recommendation": "adotar", "published": "2026-09-21", "as_of": "2026-10-18", "editorial_status": "indexed", "source_url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.24165", "independent_implementations": 0, "total_implementations": 1, "stars": 1, "citations": 0, "claims": [ { "claim_id": "claim-01", "statement": "It replaces prompt-level safety instructions and transcript-based trust with a deterministic tool-layer check that only surfaces results backed by an executed tool call, plus a parser tolerant of cross-model tool-call format drift. Cost is engineering complexity in the tool layer and a modest latency overhead for validation; it runs on a single GPU or against API models since it is model-agnostic infrastructure, not training. It can fail if the guard's execution records are themselves spoofable, if legitimate results are incorrectly rejected (false positives blocking valid outputs), and the full 58-task benchmark has not yet been used for large-scale agent scoring, so end-to-end task success rates are unquantified.", "basis": "inferred", "result": "", "baseline": "", "conditions": "", "source_url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.24165", "source_page": null, "source_excerpt": "" }, { "claim_id": "claim-02", "statement": "The tool-layer guard blocked all adversarial violations on a simulated motor-control surface (0/200) versus 15/200 for an equivalent safety prompt, and converts fabricated results (e.g., a calibration report for commands that never ran) into explicit non-results.", "basis": "inferred", "result": "", "baseline": "", "conditions": "", "source_url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.24165", "source_page": null, "source_excerpt": "" } ], "exposure_map": [ { "dimension": "quality", "basis": "not_evaluated", "finding": "", "interpretation": "", "limitation": "", "next_check": "", "source_url": "", "source_page": null, "source_excerpt": "" }, { "dimension": "compute", "basis": "not_evaluated", "finding": "", "interpretation": "", "limitation": "", "next_check": "", "source_url": "", "source_page": null, "source_excerpt": "" }, { "dimension": "latency", "basis": "not_evaluated", "finding": "", "interpretation": "", "limitation": "", "next_check": "", "source_url": "", "source_page": null, "source_excerpt": "" }, { "dimension": "operations", "basis": "not_evaluated", "finding": "", "interpretation": "", "limitation": "", "next_check": "", "source_url": "", "source_page": null, "source_excerpt": "" }, { "dimension": "compatibility", "basis": "not_evaluated", "finding": "", "interpretation": "", "limitation": "", "next_check": "", "source_url": "", "source_page": null, "source_excerpt": "" }, { "dimension": "security", "basis": "not_evaluated", "finding": "", "interpretation": "", "limitation": "", "next_check": "", "source_url": "", "source_page": null, "source_excerpt": "" }, { "dimension": "data_and_training", "basis": "not_evaluated", "finding": "", "interpretation": "", "limitation": "", "next_check": "", "source_url": "", "source_page": null, "source_excerpt": "" }, { "dimension": "reproducibility", "basis": "not_evaluated", "finding": "", "interpretation": "", "limitation": "", "next_check": "", "source_url": "", "source_page": null, "source_excerpt": "" } ], "risks": [], "minimum_test": [], "open_questions": [], "independent_tests": [], "lab_reproductions": [], "report_available": false, "validation_tier": "unknown", "evidence_tier": "unknown", "infrastructure_basis": "unknown", "equations": [], "equations_status": "not_fetched", "core_kind": "", "equations_fetched_at": "", "equations_source_url": "", "equations_source_sha256": "", "exposures_reviewed_at": "", "exposures_source_sha256": "" }