Hierarchical Prompt-Domain Control and Learning for Resource-Constrained Agentic Language Models

Production LLM agents are increasingly assembled from a frozen model wrapped in a harness: a prompt template, a tool set, a memory/retrieval layer, a planning strategy, and a verification policy. Two 2026 systems, Meta-Harness (Lee et al., 2026) and HyperAgents (Meta AI, 2026), show that this harness can itself be optimized or even self-rewritten by an agentic proposer -- at the cost of either an expensive code-search loop or unconstrained self-modifying code, neither of which is auditable or usable with a fully black-box model API. We take a narrower, more constrained position: treat the harness as a small, fixed, human-legible action space and learn a policy over it online with classic sample-efficient reinforcement learning (an $ε$-greedy contextual bandit and REINFORCE), scored against a multi-objective reward (task success, verifier score, policy compliance, cost, latency, and an unsupported-claim penalty). We instantiate this control system with DSPy (Khattab et al., 2024) as both the context assembler and the source of the strongest non-adaptive baseline (a DSPy BootstrapFewShot static prompt), and evaluate it across three verifiable task domains -- tool-use workflows, code generation (HumanEval), and multi-hop retrieval QA (HotpotQA) -- and two model providers (a local Ollama model and AWS Bedrock). We release the harness-control-system code, the cross-domain verifiable task suite, the full trajectory/reward-decomposition logs from training, and a provider-agnostic deployment recipe for applying this to a new organization's domain and verification setup.

Large language model (LLM) agents are usually improved by changing prompts, models, or hand-written workflows, while the execution harness around the model is treated as fixed infrastructure. We argue that this harness is itself a learnable control layer. We formalize harness operation as a finite-horizon Harness MDP, where a lightweight controller selects structural execution actions while the LLM executor remains frozen. The controller is trained from offline rollouts using advantage-weighted regression with only terminal task-rubric rewards. We also separate final task quality from a post-hoc Harness Maturity Score, which measures whether the harness follows reliable execution patterns rather than only whether the final answer is correct. This separation gives a finite-buffer view of harness learning: final-quality gains require high-return support in the offline buffer, while process behavior can shift whenever it aligns with advantage-weighted actions. Across six controlled domains and two public-benchmark adapters, the learned controller consistently improves verification behavior and selectively improves final task quality, with the largest gains on adapted tau-bench retail, adapted AgentBench DB-Bench, and coding with a calibrated structural verifier. Ablations against behavior cloning and Forced CHECK show that the gains are not explained by imitation or by simply adding checks. These results identify harness control as a learnable layer for frozen LLM agents, while showing that offline support limits when better process control becomes better final answers.

Large language models are increasingly deployed as agents, but reliable agentic behavior requires more than next-token prediction. At inference time, it is preferred that an agent can decide whether to proceed with its current reasoning, defer to a stronger model, request additional information, invoke external tools, or abstain under the given setup. Existing approaches address these decisions through prompt-level routing, external orchestration, or task-specific fine-tuning, which primarily rely on input-side signals, and are often costly and difficult to maintain as model backbones evolve. We ask whether such control decisions can be inferred directly from a model's latent generation process. We introduce Multi-Head Latent Control, a lightweight layer that reads hidden-state trajectories from a frozen LLM or VLM to produce deployment-time control signals. A Capability Head predicts whether the current model can solve the instance or should defer to a stronger collaborator, while a Resolution Head predicts appropriate resolution decision Clarification, Tool Use, Abstention, or Direct Answering. Both heads are trained only on latent traces from the same frozen LLM backbone, enabling post hoc adaptation without modifying the model. Across language and vision-language settings, Multi-Head Latent Control consistently improves the quality-cost tradeoff of multi-model systems, enabling early handoff from partial generations and more accurate intervention decisions. In routed execution (small + large model), it reduces large-model usage by up to 90.7 percent on AndroidWorld and 27-53 percent on average across benchmarks, while retaining most of large-model performance. Additionally, the learned control signals improve tool-use decision quality, yielding up to +158 percent relative score gain and 65.5 percent fewer missed-required tool calls.