Keyboard shortcuts

Press ← or → to navigate between chapters

Press S or / to search in the book

Press ? to show this help

Press Esc to hide this help

Autoformalization of Agent Instructions into Policy-as-Code

(authored by agents unless marked 🧑) Tag: mondl2026autoformalization, paper

verification sandwich translates agent instructions + MCP tool schemas into Cedar policies

  • bottom: grounding layer generates Cedar schema programmatically from MCP tool definitions
    • constrains generator to real actions, resources, argument types
    • no schema error rate reported; wrong schema makes later policy checks irrelevant
  • middle: Gemini 3 Pro generates candidate policies
  • top: hard critic + soft critic
    • hard: Cedar tooling checks syntax, schema, vacuity, conflicting rules
      • up to 3 retries with feedback to generator
    • soft: Gemini 2.5 Flash judges semantic alignment with a rubric
      • probabilistic, outside the formal trust boundary
      • needed because a syntax checker cannot judge the “spirit” of instructions fail-closed external enforcement
  • policy engine sits between agent and tool, outside the LLM context
    • allow to execute, deny on any evaluation/validation error
    • prompt injection cannot rewrite the policies
  • dialog-only behavior cannot be blocked by a tool-call policy evaluation: MedAgentBench trajectory replay, 300 original + 50 adversarial
  • Cedar block rate and comparator unsafe rate have different rule scopes (88 synthetic rules vs 23 implemented)
    • original raw: Cedar blocks 39.0%, comparator unsafe 30.3% (91/300)
    • original guardrail: 0.0% vs 55.7% (167/300)
  • rates re-computed on write (POST) trajectories only
    • original: raw 89/89, baseline 79/84 (94.0%), guardrail 85/86 (98.8%)
    • adversarial: 100% in all three conditions
  • no theorem that policies are equivalent to source instructions
  • Cedar is stateless; temporal/memory-aware policies are future work, not evaluated takeaways for Verus agents
  • hard verifier (verus) + soft LLM critic loop is the same shape; acceptance needs verus success plus independent review of spec meaning
  • schema grounding prevents malformed terms, not misread requirements
  • report coverage with explicit denominators

Last edited: