Sentry: Learning to Recover from LLM Agent Failures at Test Time

LLM agents fail mid-episode -- they loop, cascade tool errors, drift off goal, fabricate results, or silently absorb corrupted content -- and the standard remedy, judging every step with a second LLM, costs more than the agent itself. We ask how much detection is achievable from observable step telemetry alone, using monitors costing microseconds per step and trained only on healthy runs. On 2,823 committed agent episodes across three frameworks, three local models (qwen2.5 7b/3b, llama3.1 8b) and a commercial API (gemini-2.5-flash), a one-class echo-state-network ensemble with CUSUM alarms detects 0.71 of failures at a 5% false-alarm budget (AUROC 0.872). Its advantage over a memoryless baseline is a monotone function of post-onset horizon (+0.09 at <=3 steps, +0.40 at >=9), predicting its own failure region out of sample on AFTraj-2K. Ranking transfers with no retraining to two corpora from other groups (AFTraj-2K 0.745, ATBench 0.779). Monitors carry two burdens: a per-deployment healthy null (they do not transfer -- AUROC 0.527 cold against 0.885 recalibrated) and a residual false-alarm rate. We add a layer carrying neither: deterministic verification, which recomputes a run's stated total from the tool results it actually received and confirms every required call was made. Head-to-head it catches 60% of failures (96% with the coverage check) at 0 of 63 false positives against the monitor's 54% at 17%, transfers unchanged to llama3.1:8b (110 of 110 at 0 of 10), and trips on 0 of 1825 healthy episodes. Detection is then closed into repair: each flagged run is rolled back and re-run live, recovering 45% of failures against a 16% resampling control (p=0.0005) and lifting task success from 52% to 73% for about one extra model call per run. The system runs at ~200 microseconds per step, three orders of magnitude below a judge call. Code, traces and results are released.

An LLM agent using tools can fail silently. It stops before the task is done, raises no error, and answers fluently. Two kinds of monitor address this, one deciding whether a run failed and the other naming the step where failure became unavoidable. Much of the reported performance on both tasks comes from regularities that need no model. Failing runs are longer, and the step labelled decisive is usually the last. A rule that always names the last step is correct $67\%$ to $96\%$ of the time here, without reading the run at all. That ceiling reflects how the labels were written, not how agents break. On failures whose decisive step replay can confirm, it falls to near chance. Reporting gain over that rule therefore changes what a score means. Under that correction, methods tested here gain nothing on give-up failures, while several published systems keep a clear advantage on other splits. For detection, the agent's internal states beat transcript length and text similarity on the agent benchmark, and hold up where the text baseline does not. Precision stays low when failures are rare, so such a monitor should rank runs for review, not replace it.

LLM agents are increasingly equipped with skills to perform complex tasks through multi-step reasoning and tool use. Although skills provide reusable procedural knowledge, agents may still execute them unreliably. Even when an agent has demonstrated the capability to complete tasks under the guidance of a skill, it may fail to do so consistently across similar tasks or repeated runs due to deviations from the skill procedure or incorrect execution of individual steps. Such instability limits the practical reliability of LLM agents. To address this problem, we propose SkillSentry, a skill-oriented runtime assurance framework built upon a new domain-specific language (DSL) for representing runtime guidance for skill execution. SkillSentry initializes the runtime guidance by combining a skill specification extracted from the corresponding skill document with execution experience mined from historical successful and failed traces. It then wraps around the agent execution loop to monitor and guide skill execution under the current guidance, while iteratively refining the guidance using newly collected traces. We evaluate SkillSentry on 15 skills across two LLM agents, each paired with two backbone models, i.e., Claude Code with Claude-Haiku-4.5 and Claude-Opus-4.6, and Codex with GPT-5.2 and GPT-5.4. Our results show that SkillSentry improves the task success rate of LLM agents by 24.1% across skills, on average, while exhibiting lower variability across repeated runs.