Humans solve problems by executing targeted plans, yet large language models (LLMs) remain unreliable for structured workflow execution. We propose RunAgent, a multi-agent plan execution platform that interprets natural-language plans while enforcing stepwise execution through constraints and rubrics. RunAgent bridges the expressiveness of natural language with the determinism of programming via an agentic language with explicit control constructs (e.g., \texttt{IF}, \texttt{GOTO}, \texttt{FORALL}). Beyond verifying syntactic and semantic verification of the step output, which is performed based on the specific instruction of each step, RunAgent autonomously derives and validates constraints based on the description of the task and its instance at each step. RunAgent also dynamically selects among LLM-based reasoning, tool usage, and code generation and execution (e.g., in Python), and incorporates error correction mechanisms to ensure correctness. Finally, RunAgent filters the context history by retaining only relevant information during the execution of each step. Evaluations on Natural-plan and SciBench Datasets demonstrate that RunAgent outperforms baseline LLMs and state-of-the-art PlanGEN methods.
Planning is central to LLM agents: before acting, an agent must decompose goals, select tools, reason over constraints, and decide when a task is infeasible. Yet existing agent evaluations often report only end-to-end success, making it difficult to determine whether failures stem from planning or execution. We introduce Agent Planning Benchmark (APB), a planning-specific diagnostic benchmark with 4,209 multimodal cases across 22 domains and five settings, covering holistic planning, feedback-conditioned step-wise planning, and robustness under extraneous tools, broken tools, and unsolvable tasks. Across 12 MLLMs, APB reveals systematic weaknesses in long-horizon planning, tool-noise robustness, calibrated refusal, and inference-time refinement. We further validate APB on 200 ToolSandbox tasks and 200 τ2-bench tasks, where APB-guided refinement consistently improves plan correctness, plan grade, and downstream execution metrics across three representative models. APB thus serves as an upstream diagnostic complement to execution benchmarks. The APB benchmark and code are available in \href{https://github.com/Mikivishy/AgentPlanningBenchmark}{this URL}.
Large Language Models enable flexible natural-language planning but remain unreliable in determinism-critical domains due to their probabilistic nature. This limitation is especially problematic in running planning, where violating safety rules can lead to safety risks. We propose SafeRun, a framework for deterministic LLM-based planning via a decoupled architecture. SafeRun separates soft interpretation by an LLM from hard constraint enforcement by a deterministic solver, ensuring strict safety constraints while preserving natural-language flexibility. To validate SafeRun, we build a comprehensive benchmark for running planning under realistic physiological and safety constraints. Experiments across five LLMs show that SafeRun achieves 100% safety score (vs.\ 79.1% PE average and 97.6% CodeAct average) while maintaining competitive instruction-following scores. The SafeRun benchmark is publicly available at \href{https://huggingface.co/datasets/zzp-seeker/SafeRun-RunPlanning-Benchmark}{huggingface}.
Large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly entrusted with natural-language workflow instructions (e.g., retail-payment policies) that specify not only what outcome to achieve, but also which steps, branches, and tool interactions are permitted. When these instructions are supplied as prompt context, however, the model retains control over both procedure selection and step execution. As interactions accumulate, an agent can skip required steps, take unsupported branches, or execute a valid step with unsupported arguments or effects--a failure mode we call workflow misalignment. In this work, we propose COVENANT, a compiler-and-interpreter architecture for workflow-aligned agent execution. Our key insight is to treat workflow instructions as source programs rather than prompts. COVENANT converts the instructions into a workflow abstract syntax tree (WAST) and lowers it to a workflow control-flow graph (WCFG). At runtime, a controller interprets the WCFG one node at a time, checks each proposal against requirements extracted from the instructions before committing controller state or advancing the graph, and returns diagnostic feedback for repair. To evaluate COVENANT, we use 120 cases from three existing benchmarks, spanning seven workflow scenarios. Compared with state-of-the-art LLM agents, COVENANT improves benchmark success from 50.00% to 83.33% and reduces the workflow-misalignment failure rate from 42.50% to 15.83% (62.75% relative). These results show that COVENANT substantially mitigates workflow misalignment, moving LLM-agent alignment beyond isolated prompt following toward reliable execution of complex and multi-step workflows.