The paper investigates where exactly‑once semantics should be enforced for tool‑using agents—within the model, the agent harness, or the tool contract—by evaluating 25,930 episodes across nine models, three harnesses, two contract variants, and fifteen recovery conditions. Using the LIMBO sandbox, the study shows that when an immediate read‑back is available, frontier models rarely duplicate lost acknowledgements, whereas weaker models do; when read‑back is unavailable, the contract’s idempotency keys explain most duplicate behavior. The authors prove that verification‑only policies cannot guarantee exactly‑once under late commits without bounded in‑flight time, and that waiting only helps when delays are short and predictable.
whyItMatters":"The findings clarify that enforcing exactly‑once semantics largely depends on the tool contract and fault type, guiding designers on where to focus reliability mechanisms for LLM agents."
By Jiapeng Li
arXiv:2607. 20972v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Coding agents ship with one kind of memory: documents.
By Swapnanil Saha
arXiv:2607. 09691v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: A modern coding agent can hold an entire repository in its context window.
By Brian Sam-Bodden
The paper investigates how agents that inherit consolidated memory can mistakenly rely on constraints that were once true but have since been superseded by newer records. By modeling supersession explicitly and limiting verification to two records, the study shows that native allocation often leads to stale-consistent decisions, while reallocating one verification slot to the critical provenance path markedly improves consistency. The results suggest that memory systems may need separate freshness or supersession signals beyond relevance to avoid such errors.
By Kazuki Nakayashiki
arXiv:2608. 04278v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Coding agents increasingly work across sessions, but prose notes can preserve a conclusion without the program state that supported it.
By Hwai-Jung Hsu, Cheng-Jan Chi, Hanna Everett
StateTape introduces a new framework for long‑horizon coding agents that rewrites the agent’s context as the code repository changes, rather than letting the context grow with every observation. It models the repository as a symbol‑level code graph, using a tape to mark symbols altered by each write and a manager model to resolve stale records. The authors provide theoretical analysis, a new benchmark called TraceBench, and empirical results showing higher resolve rates across six agents and three edit‑heavy benchmarks with minimal computational overhead.
By Ziyang Yu, Liang Zhao, Bowen Zhu, Hasibul Haque