Agentic Transaction: Towards ACID-Compliant Agent Systems

In Agentic AI, Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used in the orchestration layer to coordinate multiple agents and to interact with external services, retrieval components, and shared memory. In this setting, failures are not limited to incorrect final outputs. They also arise from long-horizon interaction, stochastic decisions, and external side effects (such as API calls, database writes, and message sends). Common failures include non-termination, role drift, propagation of unsupported claims, and attacks via untrusted context or external channels. This paper presents an assurance framework for such Agentic AI systems. Executions are instrumented as Message-Action Traces (MAT) with explicit step and trace contracts. Contracts provide machine-checkable verdicts, localize the first violating step, and support deterministic replay. The framework includes stress testing, formulated as a budgeted counterexample search over bounded perturbations. It also supports structured fault injection at service, retrieval, and memory boundaries to assess containment under realistic operational faults and degraded conditions. Finally, governance is treated as a runtime component, enforcing per-agent capability limits and action mediation (allow, rewrite, block) at the language-to-action boundary. To support comparative evaluations across stochastic seeds, models, and orchestration configurations, the paper defines trace-based metrics for task success, termination reliability, contract compliance, factuality indicators, containment rate, and governance outcome distributions. More broadly, the framework is intended as a common abstraction to support testing and evaluation of multi-agent LLM systems, and to facilitate reproducible comparison across orchestration designs and configurations.

As large language model (LLM) agents are applied to longer tasks, they increasingly modify workspace state across multiple rounds of iteration. However, agents typically observe only tool outputs and log fragments, while the actual state changes occur in the file system. Without explicit workspace boundaries, state-changing operations such as file writes and temporary artifact generation may scatter changes across paths. Over time, these weakly constrained changes accumulate, making states such as modified files difficult to track. This paper presents LemonHarness, an integrated execution framework for long-horizon agents. LemonHarness establishes an explicit execution boundary by constraining state-changing operations within a clearly defined workspace and bringing model invocation, tool execution, and rule knowledge within a single controlled boundary. State-changing operations, including file writes, dependency installation, and temporary artifact creation, are executed through structured tool interfaces, with execution feedback recorded as observations available to subsequent model decisions. The system also introduces a reusable rule knowledge base, which turns recurring execution rules and acceptance criteria into runtime knowledge. LemonHarness further adds a time-aware execution mechanism that exposes elapsed and remaining budget to the model, so it can rebalance exploration, implementation, and validation effort as time pressure shifts and avoid timeouts from long waits or excessive verification. On Terminal-Bench 2.0, LemonHarness_GPT-5.3-CodeX reached 84.49% accuracy over 445 trials; pairing the same framework with the stronger GPT-5.5 backbone raised the average accuracy to 86.52% across five jobs. The results suggest that a unified runtime boundary, callable rule knowledge, and time-aware execution can improve the stability of long-horizon agent execution.

In large language model (LLM) agents, reasoning trajectories are treated as reliable internal beliefs for guiding actions and updating memory. However, coherent reasoning can still violate logical or evidential constraints, allowing unsupported beliefs repeatedly stored and propagated across decision steps, leading to systematic behavioral drift in long-horizon agentic systems. Most existing strategies rely on the consensus mechanism, conflating agreement with faithfulness. In this paper, inspired by the vulnerability of unfaithful intermediate reasoning trajectories, we propose Self-Audited Verified Reasoning (SAVeR), a novel framework that enforces verification over internal belief states within the agent before action commitment, achieving faithful reasoning. Concretely, we structurally generate persona-based diverse candidate beliefs for selection under a faithfulness-relevant structure space. To achieve reasoning faithfulness, we perform adversarial auditing to localize violations and repair through constraint-guided minimal interventions under verifiable acceptance criteria. Extensive experiments on six benchmark datasets demonstrate that our approach consistently improves reasoning faithfulness while preserving competitive end-task performance.