Skip to content
OpenTrain AIFor AI Companies

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

Changxiu Ji, Amy Lu, Qizheng Zhang, Kunle OlukotunPublished Oct 2, 2026
arXiv PDF
Researcher verdict
Context only
Use as context only
Benchmark evidence
Missing
Not verified yet
Time to first repro
A few days
Plan setup time
Risk flags
2
Review before use

Abstract

Domain fit: AI-adjacent · Paper appears method- or tooling-adjacent to AI workflows with partial ecosystem coverage.

LLM agents often fail mid-task due to invalid tool calls, repeated actions, or poorly grounded reasoning, and learning from these failures is a path to reliability. We find that how failure knowledge reaches the agent matters as much as what it contains. Failure lessons are conditional: kept in the agent's context, they misfire when their failure is absent, and removing them from an evolving playbook improves performance. Runtime interventions, in contrast, act only when a failure occurs but do not learn from their repairs. We argue that failure knowledge is conditional knowledge and should be conditionally exposed, and instantiate this principle in Sentry, a failure-management layer that runs alongside the agent. When Sentry detects a failure, it retrieves matching lessons from an external playbook to guide recovery, verifies without access to task rewards whether the agent recovered, and stores a new lesson only if it did; the full playbook never enters the agent's context. Across multiple agentic benchmarks, Sentry outperforms the strongest runtime-intervention baseline on every benchmark, by 37\% on average, and the strongest context-evolution baseline by 39\% on the two benchmarks where both are evaluated; combining Sentry with context evolution yields further gains. Learned lessons transfer to held-out tasks, and controlled experiments show that exposing the full playbook to the agent lowers performance even when relevant lessons remain available on demand.

Results and benchmarks

Freshness tier: warm
LLM agents often fail mid-task due to invalid tool calls, repeated actions, or poorly grounded reasoning, and learning from these failures is a path to reliability.

Implementation

No direct implementation yet

Maintained implementation evidence is not confirmed for this paper yet.

Use the implementation status and reproduction sections for the current action plan.

Implementation evidence summary
Confidence: low

Recommendation evidence is currently too limited for a maintained-repo choice. Use Implementation Status and Reproduction Path for a practical baseline plan.

Reproduction risks
  • Estimate is based on paper-only reproduction flow

Reproduction readiness

Time to first repro: days
Last checked: Oct 7, 2026

No repo

No verified implementation available

  • No maintained repository has been identified for this paper. Check adjacent implementations or HF artifacts below.

Hardware requirements

  • Expect multi-day setup/compute for meaningful reproduction based on current guidance.

Hugging Face artifacts

No trustworthy direct or curated related Hugging Face artifacts were found yet. Use targeted searches to quickly locate candidate models, datasets, and demos.

Tip: start with models, then check datasets and spaces if you need evaluation data or demos.

Research context

Tasks

Agentic tool use

Methods

Transformer, Agentic systems

Domains

Large Language Models, AI Agents

Evaluation and human feedback data

Open this paper in HFEPX to review benchmark signals, evaluation modes, and human-feedback protocol context.

Open in HFEPX
Explore similar papers

Jump to Paper2Code search queries derived from this paper's research context.