Proof-Carrying Contracts: Commitments AI Agents Cannot Break

Traditional software relies on contracts -- APIs, type systems, assertions -- to specify and enforce correct behavior. AI agents, by contrast, operate on prompts and natural language instructions with no formal behavioral specification. This gap is the root cause of drift, governance failures, and frequent project failures in agentic AI deployments. We introduce Agent Behavioral Contracts (ABC), a formal framework that brings Design-by-Contract principles to autonomous AI agents. An ABC contract C = (P, I, G, R) specifies Preconditions, Invariants, Governance policies, and Recovery mechanisms as first-class, runtime-enforceable components. We define (p, delta, k)-satisfaction -- a probabilistic notion of contract compliance that accounts for LLM non-determinism and recovery -- and prove a Drift Bounds Theorem showing that contracts with recovery rate gamma > alpha (the natural drift rate) bound behavioral drift to D* = alpha/gamma in expectation, with Gaussian concentration in the stochastic setting. We establish sufficient conditions for safe contract composition in multi-agent chains and derive probabilistic degradation bounds. We implement ABC in AgentAssert, a runtime enforcement library, and evaluate on AgentContract-Bench, a benchmark of 200 scenarios across 7 models from 6 vendors. Results across 1,980 sessions show that contracted agents detect 5.2-6.8 soft violations per session that uncontracted baselines miss entirely (p < 0.0001, Cohen's d = 6.7-33.8), achieve 88-100% hard constraint compliance, and bound behavioral drift to D* < 0.27 across extended sessions, with 100% recovery for frontier models and 17-100% across all models, at overhead < 10 ms per action.

Agent systems increasingly execute rather than advise. When an AI agent queries regulated data, invokes effectful tools, and mutates persistent state, correctness is not captured by whether a terminal output looks plausible. The operative questions are whether each step was authorized under a contract, whether the recorded history is tamper-evident, and whether the trajectory can be reconstructed deterministically. We formalize this as runtime proof of execution. An execution is a triple $x = (C, T, R)$: a contract $C$, an Execution Causal Event Stream (ECES) $T$, and a replay context $R$. A well-formedness predicate and five validator-checkable invariants form the PoE validity predicate. Five semantic guarantees describe authorization, path compliance, null effect on deny, history integrity, and replayability. We prove soundness under explicit cryptographic and deployment assumptions: any PPT adversary that produces a PoE-valid execution violating a semantic guarantee yields a signature forgery, a hash collision, or a quantified deployment-failure event. The Prime Execution Model (PEM) separates planning, enforcement, effect, and recordkeeping into distinct authority planes; a lemma reduces trace completeness to Effector-exclusive credentialing. An Execution Attestation Certificate is issued only when PoE = 1. In a single-node TypeScript prototype, PoE adds approximately 2.7 ms on a minimal flow and 4.4% overhead on concurrent batch workloads; a standard eight-event trace compresses to approximately 1.1 KB; injected Gateway-bypass and trace-mutation attacks are rejected. PoE does not replace consensus, TEEs, or zkVMs; it binds authorization, effect, history, and replay into a single runtime-checkable object so that governed execution becomes attestable under contract.

Decentralized agent economies increasingly build a single task from protocols that were designed and secured separately. This creates a simple problem: a workflow can look correct at each step and still produce the wrong outcome. For example, a correct escrow may release payment on an authorized approval that provides little evidence that the delivered work actually satisfied the task. We systematize this problem across the full lifecycle of an agent task. Our study organizes security and economic requirements into 17 property families over six stages, with receipt soundness and completeness assessed separately. We examine 12 systems and standards, five reusable mechanism families, and four classical baselines. We introduce guarantee closure, a task-relative criterion for determining whether guarantees established at one stage remain available and constrain the later decisions that depend on them. We apply the criterion to controlled and native workflows, covering 840 matched executions and an exhaustive 11,648-case check over a finite objective-task domain. Our results expose recurring failures between verification and settlement, where conforming work can remain unaccepted or valid evidence can be ignored. Public records and model judgments further distinguish recorded approval from evidence of task conformance, while economic analysis identifies the report, penalty, and shared-error assumptions behind these guarantees. These findings show where end-to-end guarantees fail and what must be repaired to preserve them across the workflow.