Polaris: A Gödel Agent Framework for Small Language Models through Experience-Abstracted Policy Repair

LLM agents handle user requests on behalf of organizations through tool calls and must follow the company policies stated in their system prompts. Prior work approaches this as a safeguarding problem -- external checks that block non-compliant agent actions. We argue that policy adherence is a broader problem: real workflows unfold across many turns, require explicit user confirmation and prerequisite reads, and hinge on the content of the dialogue rather than on any single argument value. Meeting this bar requires (i) full conversation context, (ii) self-reasoning over the policy and the current dialogue, and (iii) conversation-specific remediation that guides the agent's next turn -- three capabilities that prior safeguard work has often underestimated. We introduce POLICYGUARD, a sub-agent verifier that shares the agent's view of the dialogue, reasons over the policy in context, and provides actionable feedback for the agent's next turn. On tau^2-BENCH airline across three vendors (GPT-5.4, Claude Sonnet 4.6, Gemini 2.5 Pro) with four trials per setting, POLICYGUARD improves PASS4 by +12.0 / +6.0 / +12.0 pp. Per-call analyses show POLICYGUARD achieves higher policy-violation recall while blocking roughly half as often as argument-level guards.

LLM agents operating under organizational policies must comply with authorization constraints typically specified in natural language. In practice, such specifications inevitably contain ambiguities and logical or semantic gaps that cause the agent's behavior to systematically diverge from the true requirements. We ask: by letting an agent evolve its policy understanding through interaction and corrective feedback from pre-deployment testing, can it autonomously refine its interpretation to close specification gaps? We propose PolicyBank, a memory mechanism that maintains structured, tool-level policy insights and iteratively refines them -- unlike existing memory mechanisms that treat the policy as immutable ground truth, reinforcing "compliant but wrong" behaviors. We also contribute a systematic testbed by extending a popular tool-calling benchmark with controlled policy gaps that isolate alignment failures from execution failures. While existing memory mechanisms achieve near-zero success on policy-gap scenarios, PolicyBank closes up to 82% of the gap toward a human oracle.

Modern embodied agents achieve impressive performance, but their task knowledge is often stored in neural weights, latent state, or prompt-bound memory, making individual policy knowledge difficult to inspect, validate, recombine, and reuse. We introduce \textbf{Kintsugi}, a white-box policy-learning framework that treats embodied policy improvement as verifier-gated construction of a typed executable Knowledge Base (KB). Kintsugi represents task-level policy knowledge as composable typed entries -- predicates, operators, policy schemas, monitors, recovery rules, experience records, and goals -- and improves this artifact through localized typed edits induced from rollout evidence, rather than relying on test-time language-model reasoning. Between rollouts, a tool-constrained agentic editing loop diagnoses trajectory failures, localizes them to editable KB layers, and proposes candidate edits. A deterministic verification gate admits an edit only when the candidate type-checks, the resulting KB executes, and focused validation success or trajectory-health metrics improve without violating protected-regression checks. At inference, the accepted KB is executed by a deterministic symbolic executor with zero LLM calls. Across long-horizon text-agent benchmarks and representative object-centric manipulation settings, Kintsugi achieves strong endpoint performance while preserving inspectability, local editability, and verifier-gated deployment. These results suggest that embodied policy improvement can be organized around executable task knowledge.