Stop Shipping AI Agents on Faith: Capability Is Not Production Readiness

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.27677v1
• Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2026 04:44:47 GMT
• Title: Stop Shipping AI Agents on Faith: Capability Is Not Production Readiness
• Abstract summary: 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.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: AI agents are moving into production workflows where they retrieve information, call tools, maintain state, and act on behalf of users or organizations, but many release decisions still rely on capability signals, demos, or behavioral tests that do not show whether an agent is ready to operate under production constraints. Capability is therefore not production readiness. This paper introduces the ProofAgent Index (PAI), a governance readiness index for AI agents. PAI combines four dimensions of deployment evidence: Evaluation, Context, Compliance, and Governance. Evaluation measures observed behavior, Context measures the operating environment that shapes that behavior, Compliance measures alignment with applicable rules and controls, and Governance measures whether the organization can authorize, monitor, audit, and control the agent during operation. PAI is implemented inside ProofAgent Harness, an open source infrastructure for auditable AI agent evaluation and governance. Validation across two heavily regulated domains, healthcare and finance, shows that PAI carries held out readiness signal and separates higher risk from lower risk configurations. The results show that context engineering strongly changes reliability, capability improves behavior but does not determine readiness, and governance evidence must remain visible rather than averaged away. PAI reframes agent release from a faith based deployment decision into an auditable readiness decision.

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)
• Towards Trustworthy Embodied Intelligence: A Systems Framework and Graded Trustworthiness Levels [53.63220028820581]
  Embodied intelligence integrates learned perception and decision making with real-time computation, control, and physical interaction.<n>We define trustworthy embodied intelligence as the sustained capacity to execute specified tasks reliably.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-28T17:50:44Z)
• Toward Continuous Assurance for the Democratization of AI Agent Creation in Industry [1.5755923640031846]
  This paper identifies the reliability challenge created by democratized AI agent creation.<n>It proposes a lightweight continuous-assurance framework for citizen-created organizational agents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-23T16:41:56Z)
• CAGE-1: Control, Assurance, and Governance Evaluation for Enterprise Agentic AI [0.0]
  This paper introduces CAGE-1: Control, Assurance, and Governance Evaluation for Enterprise Agentic AI.<n>CAGE-1 is an evaluation framework for deciding whether enterprise agents are ready for deployment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-03T17:37:10Z)
• Agent Behavior Mining: Generative AI Agent Governance in Business Processes [0.5570192369031546]
  We introduce emphAgent Behavior Mining, a governance capability that renders generative AI agent decision-making observable and traceable.<n>We demonstrate how process managers can leverage agent logs to detect policy deviations and quantify operational variability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-12T09:55:00Z)
• The Meta-Agent Challenge: Are Current Agents Capable of Autonomous Agent Development? [80.24951682268332]
  We introduce the Meta-Agent Challenge (MAC), an evaluation framework designed to test the capacity of frontier models for autonomous agent development.<n>To ensure evaluation integrity, this framework is secured by multi-layer defenses against reward hacking.<n>We demonstrate that meta-agents rarely match human-engineered baseline policies, and the few that do are dominated by proprietary frontier models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-03T04:58:17Z)
• 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)
• AgentGuardian: Learning Access Control Policies to Govern AI Agent Behavior [20.817336331051752]
  AgentGuardian governs and protects AI agent operations by enforcing context-aware access-control policies.<n>It effectively detects malicious or misleading inputs while preserving normal agent functionality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-15T14:33:36Z)
• Towards Verifiably Safe Tool Use for LLM Agents [53.55621104327779]
  Large language model (LLM)-based AI agents extend capabilities by enabling access to tools such as data sources, APIs, search engines, code sandboxes, and even other agents.<n>LLMs may invoke unintended tool interactions and introduce risks, such as leaking sensitive data or overwriting critical records.<n>Current approaches to mitigate these risks, such as model-based safeguards, enhance agents' reliability but cannot guarantee system safety.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-12T21:31:38Z)
• AgentGuard: Runtime Verification of AI Agents [1.14219428942199]
  AgentGuard is a framework for runtime verification of Agentic AI systems.<n>It provides continuous, quantitative assurance through a new paradigm called Dynamic Probabilistic Assurance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-28T13:08:50Z)
• Do LLMs trust AI regulation? Emerging behaviour of game-theoretic LLM agents [61.132523071109354]
  This paper investigates the interplay between AI developers, regulators and users, modelling their strategic choices under different regulatory scenarios.<n>Our research identifies emerging behaviours of strategic AI agents, which tend to adopt more "pessimistic" stances than pure game-theoretic agents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-11T15:41:21Z)
• How Far Are LLMs from Believable AI? A Benchmark for Evaluating the Believability of Human Behavior Simulation [46.42384207122049]
  We design SimulateBench to evaluate the believability of large language models (LLMs) when simulating human behaviors. Based on SimulateBench, we evaluate the performances of 10 widely used LLMs when simulating characters.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-28T16:51:11Z)

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.