Skip to content
← Back to explorer

AgentHub: A Registry for Discoverable, Verifiable, and Reproducible AI Agents

Erik Pautsch, Tanmay Singla, Parv Kumar, Wenxin Jiang, Huiyun Peng, Behnaz Hassanshahi, Konstantin Läufer, George K. Thiruvathukal, James C. Davis · Oct 3, 2025 · Citations: 0

Llm As Judge
Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Validate the evaluation procedure and quality controls in the full paper before operational use.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

LLM-based agents are rapidly proliferating, yet the infrastructure for discovering, evaluating, and governing them remains fragmented compared to mature ecosystems like software package registries (e.g., npm) and model hubs (e.g., Hugging Face). Existing efforts typically address naming, distribution, or protocol descriptors, but stop short of providing a registry layer that makes agents discoverable, comparable, and governable under automated reuse. We present AgentHub, a registry layer and accompanying research agenda for agent sharing that targets discovery and workflow integration, trust and security, openness and governance, ecosystem interoperability, lifecycle transparency, and capability clarity with evidence. We describe a reference prototype that implements a canonical manifest with publish-time validation, version-bound evidence records linked to auditable artifacts, and an append-only lifecycle event log whose states are respected by default in search and resolution. We also provide initial discovery results using an LLM-as-judge recommendation pipeline, showing how structured contracts and evidence improve intent-accurate retrieval beyond keyword-driven discovery. AgentHub aims to provide a common substrate for building reliable, reusable agent ecosystems.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

  • This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
  • The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.
Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

2/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Detected

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 40%

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.

Human Feedback Types

missing

None explicit

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

"LLM-based agents are rapidly proliferating, yet the infrastructure for discovering, evaluating, and governing them remains fragmented compared to mature ecosystems like software package registries (e.g., npm) and model hubs (e.g., Hugging Face)."

Evaluation Modes

partial

Llm As Judge

Includes extracted eval setup.

"LLM-based agents are rapidly proliferating, yet the infrastructure for discovering, evaluating, and governing them remains fragmented compared to mature ecosystems like software package registries (e.g., npm) and model hubs (e.g., Hugging Face)."

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"LLM-based agents are rapidly proliferating, yet the infrastructure for discovering, evaluating, and governing them remains fragmented compared to mature ecosystems like software package registries (e.g., npm) and model hubs (e.g., Hugging Face)."

Benchmarks / Datasets

partial

Retrieval

Useful for quick benchmark comparison.

"We also provide initial discovery results using an LLM-as-judge recommendation pipeline, showing how structured contracts and evidence improve intent-accurate retrieval beyond keyword-driven discovery."

Reported Metrics

missing

Not extracted

No metric anchors detected.

"LLM-based agents are rapidly proliferating, yet the infrastructure for discovering, evaluating, and governing them remains fragmented compared to mature ecosystems like software package registries (e.g., npm) and model hubs (e.g., Hugging Face)."

Human Feedback Details

  • Uses human feedback: No
  • Feedback types: None
  • Rater population: Not reported
  • Expertise required: General

Evaluation Details

  • Evaluation modes: Llm As Judge
  • Agentic eval: None
  • Quality controls: Not reported
  • Evidence quality: Low
  • Use this page as: Background context only

Protocol And Measurement Signals

Benchmarks / Datasets

Retrieval

Reported Metrics

No metric terms were extracted from the available abstract.

Research Brief

Metadata summary

LLM-based agents are rapidly proliferating, yet the infrastructure for discovering, evaluating, and governing them remains fragmented compared to mature ecosystems like software package registries (e.g., npm) and model hubs (e.g., Hugging Face).

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key Takeaways

  • LLM-based agents are rapidly proliferating, yet the infrastructure for discovering, evaluating, and governing them remains fragmented compared to mature ecosystems like software package registries (e.g., npm) and model hubs (e.g., Hugging Face).
  • Existing efforts typically address naming, distribution, or protocol descriptors, but stop short of providing a registry layer that makes agents discoverable, comparable, and governable under automated reuse.
  • We present AgentHub, a registry layer and accompanying research agenda for agent sharing that targets discovery and workflow integration, trust and security, openness and governance, ecosystem interoperability, lifecycle transparency, and capability clarity with evidence.

Researcher Actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Check the full text for explicit evaluation design choices (raters, protocol, and metrics).
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Recommended Queries

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

  • LLM-based agents are rapidly proliferating, yet the infrastructure for discovering, evaluating, and governing them remains fragmented compared to mature ecosystems like software package registries (e.g., npm) and model hubs (e.g., Hugging…
  • Existing efforts typically address naming, distribution, or protocol descriptors, but stop short of providing a registry layer that makes agents discoverable, comparable, and governable under automated reuse.
  • We present AgentHub, a registry layer and accompanying research agenda for agent sharing that targets discovery and workflow integration, trust and security, openness and governance, ecosystem interoperability, lifecycle transparency, and…

Why It Matters For Eval

  • LLM-based agents are rapidly proliferating, yet the infrastructure for discovering, evaluating, and governing them remains fragmented compared to mature ecosystems like software package registries (e.g., npm) and model hubs (e.g., Hugging…
  • We present AgentHub, a registry layer and accompanying research agenda for agent sharing that targets discovery and workflow integration, trust and security, openness and governance, ecosystem interoperability, lifecycle transparency, and…

Researcher Checklist

  • Gap: Human feedback protocol is explicit

    No explicit human feedback protocol detected.

  • Pass: Evaluation mode is explicit

    Detected: Llm As Judge

  • Gap: Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Pass: Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    Detected: Retrieval

  • Gap: Metric reporting is present

    No metric terms extracted.

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.

Get Started

Join the #1 Platform for AI Training Talent

Where top AI builders and expert AI Trainers connect to build the future of AI.
Self-Service
Post a Job
Post your project and get a shortlist of qualified AI Trainers and Data Labelers. Hire and manage your team in the tools you already use.
Create Account & Post a Job
Managed Service
For Large Projects
Done-for-You
We recruit, onboard, and manage a dedicated team inside your tools. End-to-end operations for large or complex projects.
Learn About Managed Service
For Freelancers
Join as an AI Trainer
Find AI training and data labeling projects across platforms, all in one place. One profile, one application process, more opportunities.
Join Now