AI Agents Do Not Fail Alone:The Context Fails First

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.14275v1
• Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2026 18:33:02 GMT
• Title: AI Agents Do Not Fail Alone:The Context Fails First
• Abstract summary: This paper validates context-engineering quality as an independent leading indicator of agent reliability.<n>We implement the measurement in ProofAgent-Harness, an open-source infrastructure for AI agent evaluation.<n>We show that context-quality criteria consistently predict their corresponding behavioral outcomes.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Context engineering has become central to building reliable AI agents, yet it remains largely unmeasured. Agents do not fail in isolation: their behavior is shaped by the instructions, tools, memory, retrieved knowledge, guardrails, and untrusted inputs accumulated in their context. When this context is weak, agents drift, hallucinate, misuse tools, ignore constraints, become vulnerable to injection, and waste tokens. This paper validates context-engineering quality as an independent leading indicator of agent reliability. We implement the measurement in ProofAgent-Harness, an open-source infrastructure for AI agent evaluation that uses multi-juror, consensus-based scoring. The harness assesses context across seven criteria: role clarity, guardrail coverage, instruction consistency, tool schema quality, grounding sufficiency, injection hardening, and token efficiency. Crucially, the context score is isolated from behavioral metrics and release decisions, enabling a non-circular validation. Through a controlled context-quality study across regulated agent domains, holding frontier LLM agents fixed and varying only their operating context, we show that context-quality criteria consistently predict their corresponding behavioral outcomes. Grounding sufficiency predicts hallucination resistance, guardrail coverage predicts manipulation resistance, instruction consistency predicts instruction following, and tool-schema quality predicts tool use. These findings establish context measurement as a validated preflight signal for agent reliability and position context engineering as an auditable layer of agent evaluation and governance.

Related papers

• AI Slop and Hallucinations in Vulnerability Assessment: A Survey on Reasoning Failures and Trustworthy Mitigation [48.55515767840701]
  "AI slop" is artifacts, hallucinated vulnerabilities, plausible but incorrect patches, and semantically repackaged bug reports.<n>This paper surveys the empirical evidence, identifies a unifying mechanism, and traces a path toward trustworthy triage.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-26T11:48:38Z)
• From Sequence to Structure: Relational Uncertainty Propagation for LLM Agents [75.69180947909148]
  We propose a trajectory-level UQ framework for large language model (LLM) agents.<n>RuPA represents an execution history as a directed trajectory graph in which reasoning states, tool interactions, and environment feedback are nodes connected by temporal and semantic dependency edges.<n>We evaluate RUPA on representative agent benchmarks, including $$-2, Terminal-Bench-2, and GAIA, using 6 open-source LLMs spanning multiple model families.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-17T01:40:14Z)
• ScrambleToolBench: Agents Search Exhaustively Even When Their Own Map Points to the Next Step [74.83535434786145]
  We introduce ScrambleToolBench, an interactive terminal benchmark designed to isolate behavioral reasoning.<n>The benchmark requires agents to uncover hidden tool behaviors entirely through trial-and-error interaction.<n>Our evaluation of state-of-the-art language models reveals that successful initial discovery does not translate into robust adaptation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-03T15:07:46Z)
• Stop Shipping AI Agents on Faith: Capability Is Not Production Readiness [0.0]
  This paper introduces the ProofAgent Index (PAI), a governance readiness index for AI agents.<n>PAI combines four dimensions of deployment evidence: Evaluation, Context, Compliance, and Governance.<n>It is implemented inside ProofAgent Harness, an open source infrastructure for auditable AI agent evaluation and governance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-30T04:44:47Z)
• Power Systems Agent Benchmark: Executable Evaluation of AI Agents in Electric Power Engineering [0.0]
  We introduce the Power Systems Agent Benchmark, an executable benchmark for power-engineering agents.<n>An agent receives a structured task and returns a structured solution; a deterministic evaluator returns a normalized score, and explicit violations.<n>The benchmark contains 41 task families across eight areas of power engineering, from power flow and protection to stability, microgrids, reliability, power quality, and forecasting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-18T21:30:39Z)
• VASO: Formally Verifiable Self-Evolving Skills for Physical AI Agents [57.240036084348354]
  We introduce VASO, a framework for verification-guided self-evolution of robot skill contracts.<n>VASO verifies logically inconsistent skill contracts, then verifies plans induced by the skill against global and local temporal specifications.<n>On Clearpath Jackal and PX4 quadcopter tasks, VASO reaches 97.2% formal-specification compliance using fewer than 100 optimization samples.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-03T20:02:35Z)
• Consistency as a Testable Property: Statistical Methods to Evaluate AI Agent Reliability [6.195988633460139]
  This paper establishes a rigorous measurement science for AI agent reliability.<n>By leveraging $U$-statistics for output-level reliability and kernel-based metrics for trajectory-level stability, we offer a principled approach to evaluating agents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-11T13:06:24Z)
• AJ-Bench: Benchmarking Agent-as-a-Judge for Environment-Aware Evaluation [71.49152943451328]
  We introduce a benchmark AJ-Bench to evaluate Agent-as-a-Judge across three domains-search, data systems, and graphical user interfaces-comprising 155 tasks and 516 annotated trajectories.<n>Experiments demonstrate consistent performance gains over LLM-as-a-Judge baselines, while also revealing substantial open challenges in agent-based verification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-20T13:23:38Z)
• Towards a Science of AI Agent Reliability [9.570634569436535]
  AI agents are increasingly deployed to execute important tasks.<n>While rising accuracy scores on standard benchmarks suggest rapid progress, many agents still continue to fail in practice.<n>We propose twelve metrics that decompose agent reliability along four key dimensions: consistency, robustness, predictability, and safety.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-18T18:05:44Z)
• From Transcripts to AI Agents: Knowledge Extraction, RAG Integration, and Robust Evaluation of Conversational AI Assistants [0.0]
  Building reliable conversational AI assistants for customer-facing industries remains challenging due to noisy conversational data, fragmented knowledge, and the requirement for accurate human hand-off.<n>This paper presents an end-to-end framework for constructing and evaluating a conversational AI assistant directly from historical call transcripts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-26T07:44:47Z)
• The Why Behind the Action: Unveiling Internal Drivers via Agentic Attribution [63.61358761489141]
  Large Language Model (LLM)-based agents are widely used in real-world applications such as customer service, web navigation, and software engineering.<n>We propose a novel framework for textbfgeneral agentic attribution, designed to identify the internal factors driving agent actions regardless of the task outcome.<n>We validate our framework across a diverse suite of agentic scenarios, including standard tool use and subtle reliability risks like memory-induced bias.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-21T15:22:21Z)
• Gaming the Judge: Unfaithful Chain-of-Thought Can Undermine Agent Evaluation [76.5533899503582]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as judges to evaluate agent performance.<n>We show this paradigm implicitly assumes that the agent's chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning faithfully reflects both its internal reasoning and the underlying environment state.<n>We demonstrate that manipulated reasoning alone can inflate false positive rates of state-of-the-art VLM judges by up to 90% across 800 trajectories spanning diverse web tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-21T06:07:43Z)
• Impatient Users Confuse AI Agents: High-fidelity Simulations of Human Traits for Testing Agents [58.00130492861884]
  TraitBasis is a lightweight, model-agnostic method for systematically stress testing AI agents.<n>TraitBasis learns directions in activation space corresponding to steerable user traits.<n>We observe on average a 2%-30% performance degradation on $tau$-Trait across frontier models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-06T05:03:57Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.