Prompts express intent; they do not enforce it. This paper adapts design-by-contract to autonomous agents: preconditions, invariants, governance policies and recovery mechanisms stated formally, then checked at runtime, so a violation is caught at the step that caused it rather than three tool calls downstream.
Our summary of the paper. The full abstract is on arXiv. Preprint, not peer reviewed.
Authors
Varun Pratap Bhardwaj
Cite this paper
@misc{bhardwaj2026abci,
title = {Agent Behavioral Contracts: Formal Specification and Runtime Enforcement for Reliable Autonomous AI Agents},
author = {Varun Pratap Bhardwaj},
year = {2026},
eprint = {2602.22302},
archivePrefix= {arXiv},
primaryClass = {cs.AI},
url = {https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.22302}
}
This fortnight a government switched off the most capable AI on Earth in hours, the market crowned its 'most reliable' vendor, and Nadella called AI 'token capital.' Three stories, one category error — and the architecture that fixes it.
I maintain 7 AI products, 4 websites, and active research for $24/month — under $1/day. Here's the exact four-CLI architecture with real benchmarks, free models, and the Qualixar tooling stack.
An ACL 2026 paper just proved RL-trained reasoning causally amplifies tool hallucination. Here's the mechanism, the math, and what AI Reliability Engineering does about it.
Anthropic missed three regressions. Uber burned its 2026 AI budget. 300k Ollama servers leaked memory. Princeton paused its leaderboard. Five headlines, one engineering failure: reliability under accumulated state. The metric that exposes it, three Monday-morning fixes, and the runtime contract framework that gates it.