Causely: A Causal Intelligence Layer for Enterprise AI A Benchmark Study on SRE and Reliability Workflows

AI agents often fail in ways that are difficult to localize because executions are probabilistic, long-horizon, multi-agent, and mediated by noisy tool outputs. We address this gap by manually annotating failed agent runs and release a novel benchmark of 170 trajectories across 11 diverse task settings, including structured API workflows, incident management, and open-ended web/file tasks. Each trajectory is annotated with a critical failure step and a category from a grounded-theory derived, cross-domain failure taxonomy. To mitigate the human cost of failure attribution, we present AgentRx, an $\textit{automated diagnostic framework}$ that pinpoints the critical failure step in a failed agent trajectory. It synthesizes constraints, evaluates them step-by-step, and produces an auditable validation log of constraint violations with associated evidence; an LLM-based judge uses this log to localize the critical step and category. AgentRx improves step localization by 75% on average over prior work, while providing failure category attribution.

Identifying root causes in production microservice failures requires reasoning over large-scale, multimodal telemetry spanning metrics, logs, and traces, a problem that has proved resistant to both classical and LLM-based approaches. The OpenRCA dataset exemplifies these challenges: it is large-scale, multimodal, and lacks detailed domain knowledge, and yields consistently low accuracy across all existing methods. We show that classical causal discovery methods and existing LLM-based multi-agent systems fail to reliably identify root causes on this benchmark, and present a Structured Multi-Agent RCA pipeline that substantially outperforms existing LLM-based and classical baselines, supporting both domain-knowledge and knowledge-free operating modes. To diagnose where failures originate, we introduce a reverse reasoning agent that, given the correct answer, identifies which signals in the extracted anomalies support it and determines whether Stage~1 had access to those signals, classifying each failure as Reasoning Gap (evidence present but unused) or Data Ambiguity (evidence genuinely absent). This analysis reveals that the required evidence is present in the vast majority of failures: the bottleneck is not data access but the agent's ability to reason over it correctly. We further introduce an automated rule mining pipeline that systematically extracts discrimination rules from reverse reasoning reports, reducing reliance on manual knowledge curation. Across all configurations, model reasoning capability and domain knowledge are the primary constraints: stronger models embed more domain expertise, and explicit knowledge injection partially compensates for this gap. Reasoning performance remains practically bounded even when evidence extraction is perfect: scaffold engineering and better data pipelines alone cannot close this gap; progress requires improvements at the model level.

We introduce CausaLab, a scalable environment for evaluating interactive causal discovery by LLM agents. Unlike prior evaluations, CausaLab evaluates both whether an agent can solve a problem using causal evidence and whether its answer is grounded in a faithful recovered causal mechanism. Each episode places an agent in a synthetic laboratory: it receives prior measurement records, intervenes on a manipulator crystal, and predicts the resonance frequency of a held-out reactor crystal governed by the same mechanism. The hidden data-generating process is a randomly sampled structural causal model (SCM), so success requires recovering both a causal graph and structural equations rather than recalling prior knowledge. Experiments show a persistent gap between prediction and mechanism recovery: in the purely observational 6-node setting, GPT-5.2-high reaches 92% task accuracy but only 0.471 all-edge $F_1$. Mixed observation-intervention strategies improve structural fidelity, while pure intervention remains difficult even for strong agents. We identify premature stopping as a major weakness and show that consistency verification mitigates it. CausaLab therefore separates predictive success from causal understanding and exposes current LLM agents' limits as experimental causal reasoners.