$λ_A$: A Typed Lambda Calculus for LLM Agent Composition

This position paper argues that enforcing LLM agent safety within a single abstraction layer is not merely suboptimal but categorically insufficient for deployed LLM agents -- a structural consequence of how agent execution works, not a contingent limitation of current systems. The three dimensions that jointly constitute safe operation -- semantic intent and policy compliance, environmental validity, and dynamical feasibility -- each depend on a strictly distinct set of information that becomes available at different stages of execution. No single guardrail can certify all three. We argue that the community must respond with a contract-based architecture in which each safety dimension is enforced by an independently certified layer whose probabilistic guarantee satisfies the next layer's assumption. We sketch such an architecture and derive the compositional system-level safety bounds it admits via the chain rule of probability. Three open problems stand between this and a deployable standard: bound estimation from non-i.i.d.\ traces, graceful degradation of contracts under deployment drift, and extension to multi-agent settings -- the most important unfinished business in LLM agent runtime assurance.

Large language models are increasingly deployed as agents: they plan, call tools, read untrusted data, and act on the results. This exposes them to prompt injection: data meant only to be read is obeyed as an instruction. The most principled defences replace content inspection with provenance: classifying data by source and keeping trusted and untrusted apart through a separation of duty (the dual-LLM pattern) and information-flow control. Yet the leading systems are hard to fully trust: flow tracking is easy to get wrong, deliberate relaxations are hard to audit, and the dual-LLM pattern is hard-wired into the architecture. We present LLMbda, an untyped call-by-value lambda calculus that makes provenance-based defence both expressible and provably sound, without committing to an architecture. It adds the operational core of agentic systems as first-class constructs: prompt-response conversations that can be forked and cleared, code generation, and dynamic information-flow control in which every value carries a label that every reduction propagates. Isolation becomes a policy a program expresses, and reclassification an explicit, auditable construct. Our central result is a termination-insensitive probabilistic noninterference theorem over the whole calculus, including code-generating agents, with an insulated variant that holds even when the attacker chooses all untrusted inputs. The verified interpreter is itself the harness that calls the model, to our knowledge the first LLM agent harness whose executable is the subject of machine-checked security theorems, so every agent inherits the guarantee. On the AgentDojo banking benchmark, an agent built within LLMbda, enforcement always on, matches the utility of CaMeL, a leading dual-LLM defence, run without its policy checks (which halve its utility), and resists all but two of 1296 attacked runs. Our harness and all proofs are in Lean.

Every major LLM agent framework gives the LLM the role of orchestrator; the model decides what to do next, when to call tools, and when to stop. We argue that token explosion, control-flow hallucination, and unreliable completion are not implementation bugs but architectural consequences of assigning the deterministic work of looping, branching, and sequencing to a probabilistic system. A better prompt or a stronger model cannot guarantee the reliability of the LLM agent. We therefore propose Agentic Programming, in which the program governs all control flow, and the LLM is itself part of it, an adaptive component we call LLM-as-Code and invoke only where a task calls for reasoning or generation. Within each call the model keeps full flexibility, but it cannot alter the program's execution path. With control in the program, the LLM's context is built from the execution history's call tree and forms a directed acyclic graph (DAG). Each call's context length is then determined by its call depth rather than by accumulation over steps. A case study of computer-use agents shows that the design is practical, not just a theoretical stance, substantially improving the stability of long visual operation sequences.