Iterative Audit Convergence in LLM-Managed Multi-Agent Systems: A Case Study in Prompt-Engineering Quality Assurance

As benchmarks grow in complexity, many apparent agent failures are not failures of the agent at all - they are failures of the benchmark itself: broken specifications, implicit assumptions, and rigid evaluation scripts that penalize valid alternative approaches. We propose employing frontier LLMs as systematic auditors of evaluation infrastructure, and realize this vision through BenchGuard, the first automated auditing framework for task-oriented, execution-based agent benchmarks. BenchGuard cross-verifies all benchmark artifacts via structured LLM protocols, optionally incorporating agent solutions or execution traces as additional diagnostic evidence. Deployed on two prominent scientific benchmarks, BenchGuard identified 12 author-confirmed issues in ScienceAgentBench - including fatal errors rendering tasks unsolvable - and exactly matched 83.3% of expert-identified issues on the BIXBench Verified-50 subset, catching defects that prior human review missed entirely. A full audit of 50 complex bioinformatics tasks costs under USD 15, making automated benchmark auditing a practical and valuable complement to human review. These findings point toward AI-assisted benchmark development, where frontier models serve not only as subjects of evaluation but as active participants in validating the evaluation infrastructure itself.

Multi-agent systems (MAS) can substantially extend the reasoning capacity of large language models (LLMs). Most MAS frameworks aggregate agent outputs via simple majority voting, discarding the evidential structure of reasoning traces. Majority voting is brittle under confabulation consensus, where agents share correlated biases and converge on the same incorrect rationale. We introduce AgentAuditor, which moves beyond frequency-based aggregation by organizing agent traces into a Reasoning Tree that explicitly represents agreements and divergences in their reasoning. AgentAuditor resolves conflicts by comparing branch-level evidence at critical divergence points, turning global adjudication into efficient, localized verification. We further propose Anti-Consensus Preference Optimization (ACPO), which trains the adjudicator with evidence-verified preference supervision to reduce conformity to misleading majority cues. Across four MAS frameworks and multiple reasoning benchmarks, AgentAuditor consistently improves aggregation performance over majority voting, with gains of up to 5% absolute accuracy while remaining token-efficient.

Multi-agent LLM workflows -- systems composed of multiple role-specific LLM calls -- often outperform single-prompt baselines, but they remain difficult to debug and refine. Failures can originate from subtle errors in intermediate outputs that propagate to downstream nodes, requiring developers to inspect long traces and infer which agent to modify. We present PROTEA, a unified interface for offline, test-driven improvement of multi-agent workflows. PROTEA executes a workflow, scores intermediate node outputs with configurable rubrics, and overlays per-node states and rationales on the workflow graph to localize likely bottlenecks. To support complex systems where final-answer references are the primary supervision, PROTEA performs backward node evaluation: it generates candidate node-level expectations from final-answer references and graph context, then compares them with observed node outputs. For selected nodes, PROTEA presents targeted prompt revisions as editable before/after comparisons, then automatically reruns and re-evaluates the workflow to show output changes and score trajectories within the same interface. In two production-adjacent workflows, PROTEA improved document-inspection accuracy from 64.3% to 83.9% and recommendation Hit@5 from 0.30 to 0.38. In a formative study with six experienced LLM developers, participants valued graph-level localization, per-node rationales, and editable before/after prompt revisions.