When Should an AI Workflow Release? Always-Valid Inference for Black-Box Generate-Verify Systems

Multi-agent LLM systems that generate structured workflows from natural-language requests are now deployed in production across cloud automation, DevOps, and enterprise orchestration. Operating them exposes a recurring change-management problem. Routine updates, such as re-running an input, swapping the LLM, or refactoring an agent's prompt or orchestration code, often produce workflows that differ substantially from validated references. Engineers then lack a principled way to decide whether a change is safe to ship. Automatic workflow evaluation is the natural tool, but in practice metric scores are poorly calibrated, and a numeric change rarely communicates the severity of the underlying degradation. We introduce WorkflowPerturb, a controlled benchmark that applies realistic, graded perturbations to golden workflows. It contains 4,973 golden workflows and 44,757 perturbed variants across three perturbation types (Missing Steps, Compressed Steps, Description Changes) at severities of 10%, 30%, and 50%. We benchmark multiple metric families, analyzing their sensitivity and calibration using expected score trajectories and instance-level alert rates. Our results characterize systematic differences across families and support severity-aware interpretation of workflow evaluation scores in change-management settings. WorkflowPerturb is publicly available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/microsoft/WorkflowPerturb .

The reliability of AI generative models is typically measured by output correctness, yet in practice it depends on the effort required to verify those outputs. We argue that current evaluation metrics overlook a critical failure mode: Verification-Cost Errors (VCEs), defined as incorrect input-output pairs that a declared fraction of the verifier population fails to identify within the verification budget available in a given deployment context. Unlike standard notions of "hallucination", VCEs are defined operationally, by the failure of correct identification within budget rather than by any property of the output itself. Plausibility and authoritative presentation are hypothesised contributors to that failure, not defining conditions. To capture this asymmetry, we introduce the notion of verification cost relative to a deployment budget as an operational dimension that current evaluation does not routinely capture. The quantity is presented as a conceptual instrument rather than a finalized metric. Evidence from code generation and multi-modal document understanding shows that high benchmark accuracy can mask significant verification effort in practice. We therefore take the position that correctness alone is insufficient as a measure of reliability. AI evaluation should explicitly account for verification cost, reflecting whether errors can be detected under realistic resource constraints.

LLM agents are expected to complete end-to-end units of work across software tools, business services, and local workspaces. Yet many agent benchmarks freeze a curated task set at release time and grade mainly the final response, making it difficult to evaluate agents against evolving workflow demand or verify whether a task was executed. We introduce Claw-Eval-Live, a live benchmark for workflow agents that separates a refreshable signal layer, updated across releases from public workflow-demand signals, from a reproducible, time-stamped release snapshot. Each release is constructed from public workflow-demand signals, with ClawHub Top-500 skills used in the current release, and materialized as controlled tasks with fixed fixtures, services, workspaces, and graders. For grading, Claw-Eval-Live records execution traces, audit logs, service state, and post-run workspace artifacts, using deterministic checks when evidence is sufficient and structured LLM judging only for semantic dimensions. The release contains 105 tasks spanning controlled business services and local workspace repair, and evaluates 13 frontier models under a shared public pass rule. Experiments reveal that reliable workflow automation remains far from solved: the leading model passes only 66.7% of tasks and no model reaches 70%. Failures are structured by task family and execution surface, with HR, management, and multi-system business workflows as persistent bottlenecks and local workspace repair comparatively easier but unsaturated. Leaderboard rank alone is insufficient because models with similar pass rates can diverge in overall completion, and task-level discrimination concentrates in a middle band of tasks. Claw-Eval-Live suggests that workflow-agent evaluation should be grounded twice, in fresh external demand and in verifiable agent action.