arXiv:2606. 14790v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: LLM-based multi-agent systems increasingly coordinate planning, reasoning, tool use, and human interaction, yet their reliability remains limited.
By Hanqi Li, Jing Peng, Zijian Wang, Lu Chen, Kai Yu
arXiv:2607. 25400v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly entrusted with natural-language workflow instructions (e.
By Jincheng Wang, Min Zheng, Tao Wei
The paper introduces Spec-Driven Agentic Development (SDAD), a framework that leverages large language models to ingest extensive functional requirement documents and repository context in a single workflow, turning specification quality into the engine for autonomous software delivery. SDAD blends disciplined upfront formalisation with rapid implementation, encompassing intent capture, machine‑readable specifications, agentic synthesis, and multi‑agent verification with human sign‑off. It positions AI‑code as a fourth production paradigm, compares it to traditional Waterfall and Agile approaches, and extends the model to team role evolution, quantitative governance metrics, and a staged migration blueprint for practical adoption.
By Vu Hung Nguyen, Thanh Nguyen
The paper introduces Agentic Cloud Workflow Engineering, a framework that converts natural‑language agentic cloud‑engineering tasks into validated code repositories and verified cloud deployments. It separates graph engineering for long‑horizon workflow progression, loop engineering for bounded diagnosis and recovery, and agent harness engineering for zero‑trust execution. Experiments on Google Cloud show that executions either produce a verified deployment or an auditable terminal failure within bounded recovery limits.
By Sagar Srinivas Sakhinana, Venkataramana Runkana
The paper introduces the concept of Compositional Policy Violations (CPVs), where each step in an agentic AI workflow passes its individual compliance check, yet the overall execution violates higher‑level policies such as referral thresholds or authority limits. It categorizes CPVs into four types—Authority Creep, Threshold Laundering, Cumulative Sum Violation, and Context Collapse—and argues that the appropriate remedy depends on where the guarded quantity changes. To address this, the authors propose a provenance‑aware runtime architecture that evaluates policies over complete execution traces, recomputing guarded quantities from raw provenance rather than relying on step‑level outputs.
By Ashwini Kurady, Sri Sai Charith Grandhi, Rajesh Gupta, Sumit Mamoria
arXiv:2606. 02965v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: As large language models gain tool access and are deployed as autonomous agents capable of editing records, executing transactions, and modifying infrastructure, we still evaluate them based on the sole metric of task completion.
By Victor Ojewale, Suresh Venkatasubramanian