MENTOR: Procedural Shielding of Tool-Using LLM Agents
cs.CL, cs.LG, cs.LO
Submitted: 2026-10-12
Updated: 2026-10-12
License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
The gist: Tool-using LLM agents are increasingly used to automate workflows governed by procedural manuals, such as company rules for booking travel or procuring hardware.
Abstract
Tool-using LLM agents are increasingly used to automate workflows governed by procedural manuals, such as company rules for booking travel or procuring hardware. These manuals are written in natural language for humans and describe general requirements over such complex workflows. Ensuring compliance of LLM agents with these manuals is difficult, and state-of-the-art techniques use either LLM judges or manually written rules to forbid problematic tool-calls locally at runtime. This is insufficient because (i) only blocking tool calls keeps the agent clueless about how to make correct progress towards fulfilling its task, and (ii) can lead to overly conservative behavior of the agent, as tool calls might only be problematic in certain contexts. To overcome these challenges, we introduce MENTOR, which (i) additionally provides guidance for the agent to make procedural-compliant progress on the task, and (ii) ensures that this compliance is context-aware. We achieve these goals by building a novel history-dependent runtime shield that is obtained from the procedural manual via a multi-step autoformalization pipeline. At its core, MENTOR utilizes a game-based technique to ensure robustness against runtime uncertainty without over-resticting agents' behavior. This yields a formally assisted framework for procedural shielding of LLM agents that improves compliance well beyond existing methods. In particular, MENTOR lifts the compliance of shielded light-weight open-source LLMs above that of non-shielded proprietary models. Since a shield is synthesized once per manual and then serves every task, a MENTOR-shielded agent becomes a viable choice for repeatedly executed workflows, potentially reducing deployment costs when the offline construction cost is amortized over repeated tasks.
Sources
- A Neurosymbolic Approach to Natural Language Formalization and Verification
- MANTRA: Synthesizing SMT-Validated Compliance Benchmarks for Tool-Using LLM Agents
- $\tau^2$-Bench: Evaluating Conversational Agents in a Dual-Control Environment
- Enforcing Temporal Constraints for LLM Agents
- SOPBench: Evaluating Language Agents at Following Standard Operating Procedures and Constraints
- Autoformalization of Agent Instructions into Policy-as-Code
- Formal Policy Enforcement for Agentic Systems
- Reason Less, Verify More: Deterministic Gates Recover a Silent Policy-Violation Failure Mode in Tool-Using LLM Agents
- Progent: Securing AI Agents with Privilege Control
- ConformalNL2LTL: Translating Natural Language Instructions into Temporal Logic Formulas with Conformal Correctness Guarantees
- Solver-Aided Verification of Policy Compliance in Tool-Augmented LLM Agents
- GuardAgent: Safeguard LLM Agents by a Guard Agent via Knowledge-Enabled Reasoning
Related papers
- Exploring Solution Divergence and Its Effect on Large Language Model Problem Solving
- Ishigaki-IDS-Bench: A Benchmark for Generating Information Delivery Specification from BIM Information Requirements
- Subliminal Steering: Stronger Encoding of Hidden Signals
- MedStruct-S: A Benchmark for Key Discovery, Key-Conditioned QA and Semi-Structured Extraction from OCR Clinical Reports
- The End of Transformers? On Challenging Attention and the Rise of Sub-Quadratic Architectures
- Untangling the Mechanisms of Misleading Context in Medical Question Answering