Ambiguity is an inherent property of natural-language agent specifications. When a system prompt leaves behaviour underdetermined, identical inputs follow divergent execution paths and produce inconsistent outcomes. The standard remedy is prompt optimisation: propose candidate prompts, run the agent to score them, and keep the best. This loop pays for the agent twice: once to generate candidates and again to rank them. On a tool-using agent whose rollouts cost dollars and minutes, the ranking cost dominates and budget-constrained optimisers routinely fail to find improvements. We present Semantic Feature Analysis (SFA), a pipeline that repairs agent specifications without running any search. SFA reads execution traces the agent has already produced, clusters the outputs of each workflow node, decomposes them into semantic feature classes using an extended subject-verb-object schema, ranks those features by their contribution to outcome separation using a decision tree, and injects the surviving features as corrective statements into the affected node's system prompt. Because it never ranks candidate prompts, it never spends a rollout on selection. We evaluate SFA against five prompt optimisers (GEPA, MIPROv2, SIMBA, BootstrapFewShot with random search, InferRules) and a single-reflection control, budget-matched in dollars at three budget levels across four benchmarks (IF-Bench, HotpotQA, HoVer, and GAIA). SFA consistently improves over the unmodified agent across benchmarks and budget levels, with the largest gains where rollouts are most expensive. On GAIA, where budget-constrained optimisers cannot afford to score even one candidate, SFA improves accuracy while other arms return their seed unchanged.
Recent systems for optimizing prompts, programs, and ML workflows typically rely on explicit outer-loop controllers such as evolutionary search, bandits, or textual-gradient methods. We ask a fundamentally different question: how much of this search policy can be internalized by a single tool-using agent? We present ReASearch, a unified framework for reasoning-driven optimization in which the agent autonomously decides what to evaluate, how to diagnose failures, which edits to make, and when to verify or restart. Rather than serving only as a proposal generator guided by hand-designed heuristics, the agent actively analyzes outcomes, allocates budget, and refines its strategy over long horizons through persistent memory. With a shared agent loop and domain-specific tools, ReASearch instantiates the exact same scaffold to optimize prompts, programs, and ML workflows. Across 14 diverse tasks, it is competitive with and mostly better than specialized optimization systems, achieving gains of 2% to 40% over strong domain-specific baselines, and in some cases discovering solutions that improve on prior human best-known results. Crucially, we observe that complex search behaviors, which are typically implemented by explicit controllers, emerge naturally from the agent's reasoning process.
Semantic-gradient-based prompt optimization (SGPO) improves agent harnesses using execution feedback, but its local update rule leaves the choice of edit scope and operation unresolved. We introduce RobustSGPO, which specifies the requested edit, constructs and checks the patch, and continues search from either the incumbent or retained snapshots. We evaluate permission scheduling, cumulative controls, and task-family transfer in the AgentX brainstorming workflow using 120 tasks, 95 runs, and 7,350 candidate attempts. Periodic 1→2→3 scheduling exceeds fixed maximum permission by 0.28 test-score points. RobustSGPO increases completion on 30 held-out tasks from 60.0% to 80.0% and improves test quality from 3.77 to 4.14 under a 20-million-token budget. Category retention reduces source-task degradation after a shift, whereas random retention reaches a higher destination endpoint. Search-space control benefits quality through executable edits and alternative starting points, with measurable retention overhead.
Prompt optimization methods either analyze individual failures in isolation or compare prompt variants across examples, operating on single execution traces with no access to the reasoning process distinguishing success from failure on the same input. We introduce ContraPrompt, built on the observation that when a model fails but succeeds on a retry with feedback, the difference between its two chain-of-thought traces constitutes an optimization signal not captured by prior methods. Unlike prior contrastive methods, we compare complete intermediate reasoning processes: the two traces share model, input, and base prompt, so remaining differences reflect reasoning strategy and appended error feedback -- we call this dyadic reasoning trace analysis. The multi-attempt solving phase is an instrumented agentic retry loop that generates contrastive data automatically without human annotation. Extracted rules are organized into an input-aware decision tree routing instructions by observable input characteristics. On four reasoning and compliance benchmarks, ContraPrompt outperforms GEPA (Agrawal et al., 2026) on all four, with absolute gains of +8.29 pp on HotPotQA (+20.8% rel.), +2.21 pp on GDPR-Bench (+18.2% rel.), +7.14 pp on GPQA Diamond (+10.6% rel.), and +0.74 pp on BBH (+0.85% rel.). Ablations confirm dyadic trace contrastivity is the critical component, with a -16% relative average drop upon its removal. On 53 EvalSet black-box optimization problems, ContraPrompt beats GEPA on 11, ties on 41, and loses on 1 at equal budget. On FiNER-139 financial named entity recognition (Loukas et al., 2022), ContraPrompt achieves +7.77 pp over the unoptimized baseline (+11.6% rel.) and +1.94 pp over GEPA (+2.66% rel.), with branch conditions aligning with standard US GAAP financial-instrument categories.