ControlScope: Workflow Revision and Reliability in LLM Agents

Agent revisions expose a fundamental correctness--efficiency trade-off during concurrent execution. Discarding ongoing work preserves latest-version correctness but wastes progress that may remain valid, whereas reusing prior work preserves efficiency but risks propagating stale state into outputs and tool effects. Existing recovery strategies resolve this trade-off in an imbalanced way with coarse-grained policies: they either favor efficiency by allowing potentially stale work to continue, or favor correctness by restarting the workflow or recomputing a linear suffix from the earliest conflict, thereby discarding unaffected progress. We present \textsc{Revise}, a validity-guided runtime for fine-grained recovery in structured agent workflows. When a revision arrives, \textsc{Revise} first intersects its delta with recorded data and control dependencies and propagates the resulting impact through the partially executed DAG to identify affected work. It then stops invalid work, preserves validity-established progress beyond the earliest conflict, and recomputes only the affected region. Incomplete provenance conservatively expands recovery, while reused results are revalidated before commit. Analysis of real coding-agent traces show online recovery opportunities: 118 sessions retain observable work before a queued later message is delivered; across 167 overlapping assistant responses, enqueue-to-completion overlap reaches 56.55~s at p95. Across 300 challenging revision/commit executions, \textsc{Revise} matches a latest-version oracle with no stale outputs or effects. On unmodified LangGraph and LLMCompiler applications using Qwen3-14B, it reduces model calls by 40.6--56.0% relative to full restart and by 31.3--43.6% relative to suffix recomputation. Under serving pressure, it further reduces revision-to-correct-completion tokens by 13.26% and improves SLO goodput by 3.07--5.43%.

LLM agents often retry after external validation rejects a candidate, but the interface between validation and the next model call remains underspecified. We introduce VeriHarness, a code-controlled agent loop in which models generate candidates while external validators control acceptance, budgets, and traces. We use it to compare raw diagnostics with feedback that identifies the failure location, observed value, and admissible alternatives. Across 50 paired TextWorld games under a four-call cap, feedback containing all three fields raises terminal success from 14/50 to 36/50 for Qwen2.5-Coder-14B (+44 percentage points) and from 8/50 to 29/50 for Llama-3.1-8B (+42 points). Ablations locate most of the gain in the admissible alternatives: feedback containing only the location and observed value remains near the raw diagnostic baseline. Presenting the complete repair information in prose instead of a keyed JSON record yields nearly the same success, providing no evidence that JSON syntax itself improves repair. The ordering persists across the tested call budgets and one sampled-decoding setting.

Large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly entrusted with natural-language workflow instructions (e.g., retail-payment policies) that specify not only what outcome to achieve, but also which steps, branches, and tool interactions are permitted. When these instructions are supplied as prompt context, however, the model retains control over both procedure selection and step execution. As interactions accumulate, an agent can skip required steps, take unsupported branches, or execute a valid step with unsupported arguments or effects--a failure mode we call workflow misalignment. In this work, we propose COVENANT, a compiler-and-interpreter architecture for workflow-aligned agent execution. Our key insight is to treat workflow instructions as source programs rather than prompts. COVENANT converts the instructions into a workflow abstract syntax tree (WAST) and lowers it to a workflow control-flow graph (WCFG). At runtime, a controller interprets the WCFG one node at a time, checks each proposal against requirements extracted from the instructions before committing controller state or advancing the graph, and returns diagnostic feedback for repair. To evaluate COVENANT, we use 120 cases from three existing benchmarks, spanning seven workflow scenarios. Compared with state-of-the-art LLM agents, COVENANT improves benchmark success from 50.00% to 83.33% and reduces the workflow-misalignment failure rate from 42.50% to 15.83% (62.75% relative). These results show that COVENANT substantially mitigates workflow misalignment, moving LLM-agent alignment beyond isolated prompt following toward reliable execution of complex and multi-step workflows.