{ "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": "2609.25686", "title": "How Strongly Should Task State Influence an LLM Agent?", "summary": "The method replaces prompt-side state presentation (raw transcripts or shown checklists) with a state machine compiled from the task brief, advanced only by execution receipts, optionally hardened into a gate that refuses state-violating actions. It costs the engineering of compiling the policy into a machine, building a matcher that maps requests to steps, and maintaining execution receipts, plus potential quality loss when the gate blocks valid actions. It fails when the compiled state is incorrect, when the request-to-step matcher misjudges, and on tasks where success turns on recognizing cues rather than on tracking state, where showing the record outright performs better.", "rationale": "Enforcement is a low-infrastructure addition that pays off only when failures are state-decidable and frequent in the reader's domain, so the reader should validate on their own workload before adopting rather than applying it universally.", "technique": "State-machine enforcement gate for agent task state", "family": "seguranca_e_guardrails", "recommendation": "testar", "published": "2026-09-22", "as_of": "2026-10-18", "editorial_status": "indexed", "source_url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.25686", "independent_implementations": 0, "total_implementations": 0, "stars": 0, "citations": 0, "claims": [ { "claim_id": "claim-01", "statement": "The method replaces prompt-side state presentation (raw transcripts or shown checklists) with a state machine compiled from the task brief, advanced only by execution receipts, optionally hardened into a gate that refuses state-violating actions. It costs the engineering of compiling the policy into a machine, building a matcher that maps requests to steps, and maintaining execution receipts, plus potential quality loss when the gate blocks valid actions. It fails when the compiled state is incorrect, when the request-to-step matcher misjudges, and on tasks where success turns on recognizing cues rather than on tracking state, where showing the record outright performs better.", "basis": "inferred", "result": "", "baseline": "", "conditions": "", "source_url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.25686", "source_page": null, "source_excerpt": "" }, { "claim_id": "claim-02", "statement": "A policy-compiled enforcement gate raises a 235B agent's pass^1 on tau^2-bench airline from 0.39 to 0.54 (about 1.38x); it changes nothing for a 35B agent that rarely violates the policy and can degrade smaller agents when the matcher's judgement is wrong.", "basis": "inferred", "result": "", "baseline": "", "conditions": "", "source_url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.25686", "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": "" }