Natural-Language Agent Harnesses
Agent performance increasingly depends on \emph{harness engineering}, yet harness design is usually buried in controller code and runtime-specific conventions, making it hard to transfer, compare, and study as a scientific object. We ask whether the high-level control logic of an agent harness can instead be externalized as a portable executable artifact. We introduce \textbf{Natural-Language Agent Harnesses} (NLAHs), which express harness behavior in editable natural language, and \textbf{Intelligent Harness Runtime} (IHR), a shared runtime that executes these harnesses through explicit contr — Linyue Pan, Lexiao Zou, Shuo Guo
View PDF HTML (experimental)
Abstract:Agent performance increasingly depends on \emph{harness engineering}, yet harness design is usually buried in controller code and runtime-specific conventions, making it hard to transfer, compare, and study as a scientific object. We ask whether the high-level control logic of an agent harness can instead be externalized as a portable executable artifact. We introduce \textbf{Natural-Language Agent Harnesses} (NLAHs), which express harness behavior in editable natural language, and \textbf{Intelligent Harness Runtime} (IHR), a shared runtime that executes these harnesses through explicit contracts, durable artifacts, and lightweight adapters. Across coding and computer-use benchmarks, we conduct controlled evaluations of operational viability, module ablation, and code-to-text harness migration.
Comments: under review
Subjects:
Computation and Language (cs.CL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
Cite as: arXiv:2603.25723 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2603.25723v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2603.25723
arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
Submission history
From: Linyue Pan [view email] [v1] Thu, 26 Mar 2026 17:58:15 UTC (1,836 KB)
Sign in to highlight and annotate this article
Conversation starters
Daily AI Digest
Get the top 5 AI stories delivered to your inbox every morning.
More about
researchpaperarxiv
How AI Fails: An Interactive Pedagogical Tool for Demonstrating Dialectal Bias in Automated Toxicity Models
arXiv:2511.06676v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Now that AI-driven moderation has become pervasive in everyday life, we often hear claims that "the AI is biased". While this is often said jokingly, the light-hearted remark reflects a deeper concern. How can we be certain that an online post flagged as "inappropriate" was not simply the victim of a biased algorithm? This paper investigates this problem using a dual approach. First, I conduct a quantitative benchmark of a widely used toxicity model (unitary/toxic-bert) to measure performance disparity between text in African-American English (AAE) and Standard American English (SAE). The benchmark reveals a clear, systematic bias: on average, the model scores AAE text as 1.8 times more toxic and 8.8 times higher for "identity hate"
Knowledge Map
Connected Articles — Knowledge Graph
This article is connected to other articles through shared AI topics and tags.
Discussion
Sign in to join the discussion
No comments yet — be the first to share your thoughts!