From Cognitive Architectures to Language Agents: A Mechanism-Level Review of Lineage, Convergence, and Migration Gaps

How do two agents invent a shared language from scratch? In a Lewis signaling game, a sender and receiver must coordinate on a code using only their interaction history. We study five memory architectures across varying channel configurations with LLM agents and find that memory architecture matters more than channel capacity. Agents with a persistent private notebook benefit from surplus channel capacity and avoid the high-capacity collapse seen in stateless agents, achieving the most reliable coordination ($0.867 \pm 0.023$ at capacity = 25). Stateless agents peak at moderate capacity and then degrade as the vocabulary grows beyond what a rolling context window can track The notebook externalizes learned conventions, freeing agents from having to re-derive codes each round. An information bottleneck-inspired argument predicts an optimal capacity equal to the number of objects. Instead, the bottleneck (capacity = 8) proves to be a fragility point, and surplus capacity is generally better. We show that channel capacity alone cannot predict coordination; memory architecture determines whether agents turn interaction history into stable conventions, and both dimensions are needed to understand how signals become language.

Cognitive language agents have achieved substantial progress by equipping language models with memory, tools, and decision-making procedures, enabling agents to reason and act in interactive environments. Existing frameworks largely cast these agents as systems for solving user-specified, bounded tasks. An increasingly important goal is for language agents to provide persistent assistance in long-lived settings where user needs, context, and service procedures persist and change, and to remain useful across the broad range of tasks that arise over time. Yet we still lack a framework to characterize persistent AI agents, organize existing work, and guide future development. To this end, we propose a Perception-Centered Architecture for Persistent Agents (Pera). Pera describes a persistent agent organized around perception and control components that continually perceive service-relevant signals from episodic task executions, internal context, and changes in the surrounding environment, and use these signals to construct lifecycle tasks. These tasks drive the ongoing operation and adaptation of the agent's service procedures. We use Pera to retrospectively organize recent work, examine a detailed case study, and offer forward-looking insights for building more capable persistent agents. Just as software engineering moved from programming in the small to programming in the large, Pera frames the evolution of language agents as an analogous architectural transition toward long-lived, adaptive intelligence systems.

The agent harness, the system layer comprising prompts, tools, memory, and orchestration logic that surrounds the model, has emerged as the central engineering abstraction for LLMbased agents. Yet harness design remains ad hoc, with no formal theory governing composition, preservation of properties under compilation, or systematic comparison across frameworks. We show that the categorical Architecture triple (G, Know, Phi) from the ArchAgents framework provides exactly this formalization. The four pillars of agent externalization (Memory, Skills, Protocols, Harness Engineering) map onto the triple's components: Memory as coalgebraic state, Skills as operad-composed objects, Protocols as syntactic wiring G, and the full Harness as the Architecture itself. Structural guarantees-integrity gates, quality-based escalation, supported convergence checks-are Know-level certificates whose preservation is structural replay: our compiler checks identity and verifier replay, not output-layer correctness or model behavior. We validate this correspondence with a reference implementation featuring compiler functors targeting Swarms, DeerFlow, Ralph, Scion, and LangGraph: the four configuration compilers preserve three named certificate types by identity or replay, and LangGraph preserves the same certificates through its shared per-stage execution path. The LangGraph compiler creates one node per stage using the same per-stage method as the native runtime, providing LangGraph-native observability without reimplementing harness logic. An end-to-end escalation experiment with real LLM agents confirms that the quality-based escalation control path is model-parametric in this two-model, one-task experiment. The result positions categorical architecture as the formal theory behind harness engineering.