This survey establishes workload-level boundaries and connects system architecture, competence acquisition, and evaluation through a seven-dimensional terminal competence profile, and provides a unified basis for studying terminal-mediated agency across software engineering and emerging application domains.
Abstract
Large language model agents increasingly act through terminals, yet existing surveys disperse terminal-mediated behavior across software engineering, tool use, and computer-use research. We regard terminal agents as systems whose dominant progress-bearing action--observation loop is mediated by terminal command execution, textual feedback, and stateful environment interaction. Using terminal-mediated execution as an organizing lens, this survey establishes workload-level boundaries and connects system architecture, competence acquisition, and evaluation through a seven-dimensional terminal competence profile. Our synthesis shows that realized behavior is jointly shaped by the model, interface, harness, runtime, and environment. Executable trajectories ground learning in action consequences, verification, and recovery, whereas prevailing evaluations emphasize final outcomes and expose process quality, recovery, and governance unevenly. Bounded fixed-condition diagnostics illustrate two implications: benchmark families expose different process signals, and matched system comparisons reveal benchmark-dependent performance and limits of component attribution. These findings motivate explicit reporting of system and runtime conditions, supported by replayable traces and process-level evidence. The framework provides a unified basis for studying terminal-mediated agency across software engineering and emerging application domains.
This survey synthesizes 257 papers spanning agent evaluation, software assurance, cyber-physical systems, runtime monitoring, and regulatory guidance in order to characterize the validation problem for agentic systems, and concludes with a lifecycle-oriented research agenda centered on bounded-autonomy specifications, adversarial trajectory generation, runtime monitoring, and audit-ready evidence structures.
Fabio Orazio Mirto, L. D’Agati, Giuseppe Tricomi et al.· arXiv.org· 0 citations
Autonomous AI agents increasingly select actions in environments whose memory, execution-time, runtime, compute, and operational constraints determine what counts as a suitable plan. We call the absence of this execution context from an agent's planning state substrate blindness. We test this general proposition through numerical code generation, where selected implementation choices and operational consequences are directly observable. Three frontier model configurations--Anthropic Claude Opus 5, OpenAI GPT-5.6-Sol, and Google Gemini 3.7 Flash--generate code for a high-dimensional pairwise Euclidean-distance task either from the task alone or with a 128 MB RAM and 10.0 s wall-time contract. Contract disclosure reduced measured peak process memory in 13 of 14 executable index-aligned task-only versus contract-disclosed comparisons and reduced mean wall time in all three cohorts, making execution up to 3.1x faster. Across the audited corpus, disclosure produced structural code changes including bounded blocking, float32 retention, upper-triangle traversal, and in-place or memory-mapped buffers. At a tighter 96 MB contract, independently sampled contract-disclosed cohorts achieved correct-and-within-budget outcomes of 4/5 for Claude Opus 5, 5/5 for GPT-5.6-Sol, and 3/5 for Gemini 3.7 Flash, compared with task-only outcomes of 0/5, 1/5, and 0/5; cohort mean MaxRSS and wall time were 49-74% and 35-64% lower than their task-only references. These results establish a controlled proof of concept for substrate-aware agent planning: a minimal execution contract induces proactive structural adaptation in generated programs, shifting computation away from unconstrained allocations and substantially improving observed resource-time profiles before execution.
A unified, taxonomy-driven, and deployment-oriented survey of agentic AI systems, synthesizing recent advances through a modular reference architecture and a four-dimensional taxonomy that characterizes agents along the axes of autonomy, tool use, collaboration, and safety–governance is presented.
Sparsh Bajoria, Shreyanshu Ranjan, Adhitya M et al.· Cognitive Computation· 0 citations
Pera describes a persistent agent organized around perception and control components that continually perceive service-relevant signals from episodic task executions, internal context, and changes in the surrounding environment, and use these signals to construct lifecycle tasks.
Shihan Dou, Haoxiang Jia, Shichun Liu et al.· 0 citations
Large language models become consequential agents when surrounding systems let outputs change external state. Models now call tools, operate interfaces, delegate work, retain state, inhabit generated worlds, and control robots or laboratory equipment. Such advances are often narrated as one march toward autonomy, conflating model competence, system integration, persistence, and safe authority. This critical review synthesizes primary research and official technical specifications available by 31 August 2026. We organize the evidence along delegated authority, temporal persistence, and environmental coupling, while separating model, harness, and environment. Within the evidence examined, action-interface expansion is documented more convincingly than robust completion, recovery, authorization, or independent verification. Model Context Protocol and Agent2Agent improve interoperability but do not establish trustworthy delegation; multi-agent organization adds specialization alongside cost and correlated failure. Persistent simulations and world models support training and planning but do not themselves demonstrate agency; robotics and self-driving laboratories establish bounded feasibility rather than unattended open-world reliability. We propose justified delegation as an analytical and normative heuristic, not an observed law or certified score: expand action scope only where evidence supports provenance, bounded authority, failure detection, safe recovery, and calibrated human control. This framing yields a research agenda for coupled model-harness evaluation, capability-based permissions, durable state, cross-agent accountability, and staged physical validation.
This review connects ten historical cognitive architectures, eight language-agent runtime families, and forty-two mechanism-focused modern systems to contribute a distinctive-mechanism catalog, an auditable evidence-depth framework, and a falsifiable agenda for testing these bundles as composable runtime invariants.
Haodi Fan, Zucong Lan· arXiv.org· 1 citation· ⚡1
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.
