惯性聚合 高效追踪和阅读你感兴趣的博客、新闻、科技资讯
阅读原文 在惯性聚合中打开

推荐订阅源

博客园_首页
博客园 - 【当耐特】
博客园 - 叶小钗
阮一峰的网络日志
阮一峰的网络日志
WordPress大学
WordPress大学
D
Docker
T
The Blog of Author Tim Ferriss
Cyber Security Advisories - MS-ISAC
Cyber Security Advisories - MS-ISAC
Microsoft Azure Blog
Microsoft Azure Blog
钛媒体:引领未来商业与生活新知
钛媒体:引领未来商业与生活新知
月光博客
月光博客
M
MIT News - Artificial intelligence
H
Hackread – Cybersecurity News, Data Breaches, AI and More
freeCodeCamp Programming Tutorials: Python, JavaScript, Git & More
云风的 BLOG
云风的 BLOG
F
Fortinet All Blogs
罗磊的独立博客
小众软件
小众软件
A
About on SuperTechFans
MyScale Blog
MyScale Blog
D
DataBreaches.Net
The GitHub Blog
The GitHub Blog
C
Check Point Blog
L
LangChain Blog

DEV Community

Authentication Security Deep Dive: From Brute Force to Salted Hashing (With Java Examples) Why AI Systems Don’t Fail — They Drift Spilling beans for how i learn for exam😁"Reinforcement Learning Cheat Sheet" I Replaced Chrome with Safari for AI Browser Automation. Here's What Broke (and What Finally Worked) How Python Borrows Other People's Work The $40 Architecture: Processing 1 Billion API Requests with 99.99% Uptime Vibe Coding: A Workflow Guide (From Zero to SaaS) Most webhook security guides protect the wrong side. The scary part is delivery. Headless CMS for TanStack Start: Build a Blog with Cosmic EU Age Verification App "Hacked in 2 Minutes" — What Actually Happened Comfy Cloud’s delete function does not actually remove files Running AI Models on GPU Cloud Servers: A Beginner Guide Event-driven media intelligence with AWS Step Functions and Bedrock I scored 500 AI prompts across 8 quality dimensions — here's what broke How to Call Google Gemini API from Next.js (Free Tier, No Backend Needed) The Portal Protocol: Reclaiming Human Connection in the Age of AI How to Fix Your Team's Scattered Knowledge Problem With a Self-Hosted Forum Intro to tc Cloud Functors: A Graph-First Mental Model for the Modern Cloud Designing Multi-Tenant Backends With Both Ownership and Team Access I Built a Neumorphic CSS Library with 77+ Components — Here's What I Learned PostgreSQL Performance Optimization: Why Connection Pooling Is Critical at Scale Cómo construí un SaaS multi-rubro para gestionar expensas en Argentina con FastAPI + Vue 3 🚀 I Built an Ethical Hacking Scanner Tool – Open Source Project I Replaced /usage and /context in Claude Code With a Single Statusline A Pythonic Way to Handle Emails (IMAP/SMTP) with Auto-Discovery and AI-Ready Design I Collected 8.9 Million Polymarket Price Points — Here's What I Found About How Markets Really Move EcoTrack AI — Carbon Footprint Tracker & Dashboard Everyone's Using AI. No One Agrees How. 5 self-hosted ebook managers worth trying in 2026 Building Your First AI Agent with LangChain: From Chatbot to Autonomous Assistant
AgentCore Harness runs your agent. ShapeV2 controls what ...
Alexey Vidan · 2026-05-06 · via DEV Community

AWS just shipped AgentCore Harness in public preview. It solves the infrastructure problem every team building AI agents has been re-solving from scratch (compute, memory, tool connectivity, observability), and it solves it well. You declare a config; you get a running agent.

It does not solve governance. That's a separate layer, and it's the layer where most agent failures actually happen.

What AgentCore Harness is

Every AI agent runs an orchestration loop: call the model, pick a tool, pass results back, manage context, handle failures. That loop needs infrastructure under it: compute, sandboxing, secure tool connections, persistent storage, identity, observability. That stack is the "harness." Until AgentCore, every team built it from scratch.

AgentCore Harness replaces that build with a configuration. You declare what your agent does (model, tools, instructions), and AWS handles the rest.

Available in: US West (Oregon), US East (N. Virginia), Asia Pacific (Sydney), Europe (Frankfurt).
Pricing: No separate harness charge. You pay for the underlying AgentCore capabilities you use.
Powered by: Strands Agents, AWS's open-source agent framework.

What you get

  • Isolated compute. Every session in its own microVM, with its own filesystem and shell. Run shell commands directly on the session (no model reasoning, no token cost) for setup, scripts, or debugging.
  • Stateful by default. Persistent short-term and long-term memory across sessions. Persistent filesystem. Sessions resume where they left off.
  • Multi-model, mid-session. Any model from Amazon Bedrock, OpenAI, or Google Gemini. Switch providers mid-session without losing context.
  • Tool connectivity. Through AgentCore Gateway, MCP servers, or the built-in browser and code interpreter.
  • Custom environments. Bring your own source, dependencies, and tools.
  • Observability. Every action traced through AgentCore Observability.
  • Security. VPC networking, identity, per-session access controls.

This turns days of plumbing into a config change. Trying a different model or adding a tool stops being a refactor.

Full docs.

Where it stops

Your agent now has a secure environment, persistent memory, and a dozen tools. The infrastructure problem is solved. A different set of questions stays open:

  • Can the agent call send_email before it's finished reading customer data?
  • If a 3-step workflow fails at step 2, does step 1 get rolled back?
  • When the agent burns 90% of its budget, does its behavior change, or just the bill?
  • Can you prove why a specific tool call was permitted, not just that it happened?

AgentCore Harness traces what happened. It does not control what's allowed to happen. That's a layer boundary, and infrastructure and governance benefit from being decoupled.

Shape: governance for the tools your agent calls

The questions above don't get answered by adding more observability. They get answered by enforcing rules at the moment a tool is about to run.

Shape is a single-file Python library (~400 lines, zero dependencies) that adds that enforcement layer:

from shape import Agent, ToolEffect

agent = Agent("customer-service", budget=5.00)
agent.tool("lookup_customer", effect=ToolEffect.READ,         fn=lookup_fn)
agent.tool("update_record",   effect=ToolEffect.REVERSIBLE,   fn=update_fn)
agent.tool("send_email",      effect=ToolEffect.IRREVERSIBLE, fn=email_fn)

agent.rules("""
    BLOCK send_email WHEN phase IS NOT commit
    BLOCK * WHEN budget ABOVE 90%
""")

# EXPLORE: read-only, safe
with agent.explore() as ctx:
    customer = ctx.call("lookup_customer", id="C-1234")

# COMMIT: transactional, all-or-nothing
with agent.commit() as tx:
    tx.call("update_record", cost=0.01, id="C-1234", status="welcomed")
    tx.call("send_email",    cost=0.10, to=customer["email"], template="welcome")
    # if send_email fails → update_record is compensated automatically

Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

What it enforces:

  • Phase lifecycle. Explore → Decide → Commit. In Explore, only read tools work. Call a write tool in Explore and you get an exception, not a warning. The agent reads before it writes, structurally, not by prompt discipline.
  • Transactional tool calls. Every step in a commit succeeds, or none stick. Automatic compensation on failure. Databases solved this in 1978; AI agents have not.
  • Budget as a control signal. Not a metric you check after the invoice. At configurable thresholds, behavior changes in real time: reduce scope, block commits, force re-evaluation, hard stop.
  • Proof traces. A structured record of why each tool call was permitted. Phase check passed. Budget check passed. Rule check passed. A decision chain, not a log line.
  • Human-readable rule DSL. Governance rules a non-engineer can read and audit.

How they fit together

┌─────────────────────────────────────┐
│  Agent logic (LLM + prompts)        │
├─────────────────────────────────────┤
│  Shape (governance)                 │  ← permission, phases, transactions
├─────────────────────────────────────┤
│  AgentCore Harness (infrastructure) │  ← compute, memory, networking
└─────────────────────────────────────┘

Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

Deploy Shape inside an AgentCore Harness custom environment. The harness provides the runtime. Shape decides what the agent is allowed to do inside it.

Capability AgentCore Harness Shape
Managed compute and isolation
Persistent memory and filesystem
Multi-model switching
Observability (what happened)
Phase enforcement (read before write)
Transactional tool calls with rollback
Budget as a behavioral gate
Proof traces (why it was permitted)
Human-readable rule DSL Cedar (via Gateway) built-in
Vendor lock-in AWS none
Dependencies AWS SDK zero

This gap isn't AgentCore-specific

LangGraph, CrewAI, Strands: they all optimize for capability. None enforce permission at runtime. The failure modes repeat across real projects:

  • Agent writes to a database before finishing its read phase. Partial data corrupts downstream services.
  • A 3-step workflow fails at step 2. Step 1 already committed. Manual cleanup follows.
  • Cost spikes because nothing gates behavior at budget thresholds. You find out from the invoice.
  • An incident happens. You can trace what the agent did, not why the system allowed it.

Infrastructure answers "can my agent run?" Governance answers "should my agent act right now, with this tool, at this cost?" Different questions, different layers. AgentCore Harness solves the first one well. The second one is still on you, and it's the one that determines whether you trust the agent in production.

Links