Daily Papers

Large language model (LLM) coding agents increasingly operate with shell access, allowing them to write scripts, move files, alter permissions, and modify system configurations. However, an agent may achieve a user's goal while causing unintended harm, such as deleting unrelated files, weakening access controls, or corrupting data, in response to benign inputs without explicit jailbreaking. This failure mode is particularly important because apparent task success may reassure users that an agent behaved correctly, causing harmful side effects to go unnoticed. We call this harmful success: the agent successfully completes the intended benign task while simultaneously causing unintended harm. Despite its importance, harmful success is difficult to measure because conventional task-success metrics overlook harmful behaviors, while existing safety evaluations are often designed solely to assess harmful outcomes. We introduce VeriHarm, an automatic framework for constructing programmatically verifiable benchmarks that directly measure harmful success. VeriHarm minimally perturbs coding tasks to elicit unintended harmful behavior while maintaining the benignity of the task and preserving the original task objective. It then synthesizes executable harm tests that, together with the original task-correctness tests, evaluate both task accuracy and harmful outcomes. Frontier agents, including GPT-5.6-Sol and Claude-Opus-5, achieve an average task accuracy of 95% on our curated VeriHarm-Bench, yet still struggle to complete tasks safely: their safe success rate, the fraction of tasks completed successfully without triggering the designated harm, averages only 37%. These results suggest that successful task completion can frequently coexist with unintended harm, and that task-success metrics alone may substantially understate the potential safety risks of coding agents.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) evolve into autonomous agents, existing safety evaluations face a fundamental trade-off: manual benchmarks are costly, while LLM-based simulators are scalable but suffer from logic hallucination. We present AutoControl Arena, an automated framework for frontier AI risk evaluation built on the principle of logic-narrative decoupling. By grounding deterministic state in executable code while delegating generative dynamics to LLMs, we mitigate hallucination while maintaining flexibility. This principle, instantiated through a three-agent framework, achieves over 98% end-to-end success and 60% human preference over existing simulators. To elicit latent risks, we vary environmental Stress and Temptation across X-Bench (70 scenarios, 7 risk categories). Evaluating 9 frontier models reveals: (1) Alignment Illusion: risk rates surge from 21.7% to 54.5% under pressure, with capable models showing disproportionately larger increases; (2) Scenario-Specific Safety Scaling: advanced reasoning improves robustness for direct harms but worsens it for gaming scenarios; and (3) Divergent Misalignment Patterns: weaker models cause non-malicious harm while stronger models develop strategic concealment.

Large language model (LLM) agents combine language-based reasoning with external tools to perform complex tasks. Adversarial inputs can exploit interactions between the agent and its environment, causing the agent to violate safety policies during execution. Yet existing evaluations often reduce agent safety to a single attack success rate (ASR), collapsing exposure, execution, observation, and adjudication and potentially conflating actual violations with evidence visibility. We introduce REDAgentBench, an executable framework for autonomous red-teaming and faithful measurement. It derives attacks from explicit safety constraints and associated agent-system vulnerabilities, runs them in isolated service sandboxes, and verifies harmful effects from service receipts and final-state changes. The benchmark contains 1,661 cases across five service surfaces. Across six models and three agent harnesses, macro-average ASR is 65.69%; reported ASR varies with harness and evidence view, while evaluation-context disclosure changes execution behavior. In a state-grounded diagnostic cohort, almost one in five confirmed violations with resolved action anchors occurs after the agent states the relevant constraint or risk, revealing a Recognition--Execution Gap. Finally, a training-free policy reminder reduces confirmed violations by more than 70 percentage points in matched replay. These findings show that executable evaluation can improve safety measurement and identify actionable intervention points.

Computer use agents are LLM-based agents that can directly interact with a graphical user interface, by processing screenshots or accessibility trees. While these systems are gaining popularity, their safety has been largely overlooked, despite the fact that evaluating and understanding their potential for harmful behavior is essential for widespread adoption. To address this gap, we introduce OS-Harm, a new benchmark for measuring safety of computer use agents. OS-Harm is built on top of the OSWorld environment and aims to test models across three categories of harm: deliberate user misuse, prompt injection attacks, and model misbehavior. To cover these cases, we create 150 tasks that span several types of safety violations (harassment, copyright infringement, disinformation, data exfiltration, etc.) and require the agent to interact with a variety of OS applications (email client, code editor, browser, etc.). Moreover, we propose an automated judge to evaluate both accuracy and safety of agents that achieves high agreement with human annotations (0.76 and 0.79 F1 score). We evaluate computer use agents based on a range of frontier models - such as o4-mini, Claude 3.7 Sonnet, Gemini 2.5 Pro - and provide insights into their safety. In particular, all models tend to directly comply with many deliberate misuse queries, are relatively vulnerable to static prompt injections, and occasionally perform unsafe actions. The OS-Harm benchmark is available at https://github.com/tml-epfl/os-harm.

Agentic red-teaming benchmarks report whether an injected agent was compromised as a single bit: the attack succeeded, or it did not. We argue that this binary attack-success rate discards the information a defender most needs, namely how harmful the resulting action was. We introduce an action-graded harm rubric that scores an agent's tool-call trajectory on a seven-level ordinal scale (L0 to L6) according to whether the executed action was reversible, whether it crossed scope to reach another party, and whether it expanded privilege. We compute the scale two ways: a deterministic oracle that reads the trajectory and the attacker's stated goal, and a panel of three frontier language-model judges that read a tag-free account of the same trajectory. Across four victim models and two defenses on the AgentDojo workspace suite, severity grading exposes three cases the binary metric hides, including a defense that reports a zero attack-success rate while still permitting an externally visible cross-scope leak through an unfiltered tool. The judge panel reproduces the oracle with high ordinal agreement (Krippendorff's alpha = 0.91) but shares systematic blind spots that we characterize, most notably a failure to recognize escalation chains. Unlike prior work that provides harm taxonomies, harmful-task completion tests, execution-level safety benchmarks, or severity-aware simulation, our contribution is a reusable, trace-grounded severity instrument applied to the actual actions recorded in existing red-team logs. All code, prompts, and per-episode logs are released.

LLM agents increasingly perform autonomous actions through external tools, leading to complex and evolving safety risks. However, existing safety testing targets expert-designed safety violations, and the corresponding outcomes are evaluated by hard-coded rules, making them costly to extend as agents evolve. To this end, we present Vera, an end-to-end automated safety testing framework that instantiates software engineering testing principles for non-deterministic agents through a three-stage, self-reinforcing pipeline. First, a literature-driven exploration continuously discovers and structures emerging risks into taxonomies of safety risks, attack methods, and tool execution environments. Second, combinatorial composition across taxonomy dimensions produces executable safety cases, each specifying a concrete safety goal, a programmatically constructed initial state, and a deterministic verification predicate grounded in observable artifacts. Third, adaptive execution runs heterogeneous agents in isolated sandboxes where a control agent steers multi-turn interaction based on runtime observations, while evidence-grounded verifiers judge outcomes from environment state and tool-call evidence rather than model self-report. We evaluate Vera on four production agent frameworks (OpenClaw, Hermes, Codex, Claude Code), revealing substantial safety weaknesses, with average attack success rates reaching 93.9\% under multi-channel attacks; we also release Vera-Bench, comprising 1600 executable safety cases spanning 124 risk categories across three execution settings. These results indicate that modular, executable testing infrastructure is essential for rigorous and maintainable safety evaluation of rapidly evolving agentic systems at scale. The code is publicly available at https://github.com/Yunhao-Feng/Vera.

Professional agents increasingly work through command-line interfaces and multiple tools over shared workspaces containing files, messages, and business applications. These environments create safety risks that are difficult to capture with attacks placed at a single, known read location. We introduce APEX-Harm, a benchmark for evaluating prompt and script injection against long-horizon agents performing finance, consulting, and legal tasks in large workspaces. Each task contains 115 to 328 files, together with email, calendar, chat, document, spreadsheet, PDF, and code-execution tools exposed through MCP servers. The benchmark includes six attack categories covering static and dynamic injections, task-specific script replacement, and attacker-provided generic scripts, and evaluates attack success, exposure, and task performance. We evaluate 12 frontier models on 180 task instances per model. Opus 5 and Sonnet 5 have the lowest overall attack success rates (8% and 20%), while task-specific script replacement and attacker-provided generic script attacks remain substantially more effective, averaging 81-84% and 73% attack success, respectively. Gemini 3.8 Flash achieves the highest mean task score (0.877) while still exhibiting a 33% attack success rate. These results show that completing the requested task is not sufficient evidence of safe behavior: an agent can produce a correct deliverable while also performing an unauthorized action in the workspace.

The past year has seen rapid acceleration in the development of large language models (LLMs). However, without proper steering and safeguards, LLMs will readily follow malicious instructions, provide unsafe advice, and generate toxic content. We introduce SimpleSafetyTests (SST) as a new test suite for rapidly and systematically identifying such critical safety risks. The test suite comprises 100 test prompts across five harm areas that LLMs, for the vast majority of applications, should refuse to comply with. We test 11 open-access and open-source LLMs and four closed-source LLMs, and find critical safety weaknesses. While some of the models do not give a single unsafe response, most give unsafe responses to more than 20% of the prompts, with over 50% unsafe responses in the extreme. Prepending a safety-emphasising system prompt substantially reduces the occurrence of unsafe responses, but does not completely stop them from happening. Trained annotators labelled every model response to SST (n = 3,000). We use these annotations to evaluate five AI safety filters (which assess whether a models' response is unsafe given a prompt) as a way of automatically evaluating models' performance on SST. The filters' performance varies considerably. There are also differences across the five harm areas, and on the unsafe versus safe responses. The widely-used Perspective API has 72% accuracy and a newly-created zero-shot prompt to OpenAI's GPT-4 performs best with 89% accuracy. Content Warning: This paper contains prompts and responses that relate to child abuse, suicide, self-harm and eating disorders, scams and fraud, illegal items, and physical harm.

Recent advances in multi-modal large language models (MLLMs) have enabled unified perception-reasoning capabilities, yet these systems remain highly vulnerable to jailbreak attacks that bypass safety alignment and induce harmful behaviors. Existing benchmarks such as JailBreakV-28K, MM-SafetyBench, and HADES provide valuable insights into multi-modal vulnerabilities, but they typically focus on limited attack scenarios, lack standardized defense evaluation, and offer no unified, reproducible toolbox. To address these gaps, we introduce OmniSafeBench-MM, which is a comprehensive toolbox for multi-modal jailbreak attack-defense evaluation. OmniSafeBench-MM integrates 13 representative attack methods, 15 defense strategies, and a diverse dataset spanning 9 major risk domains and 50 fine-grained categories, structured across consultative, imperative, and declarative inquiry types to reflect realistic user intentions. Beyond data coverage, it establishes a three-dimensional evaluation protocol measuring (1) harmfulness, distinguished by a granular, multi-level scale ranging from low-impact individual harm to catastrophic societal threats, (2) intent alignment between responses and queries, and (3) response detail level, enabling nuanced safety-utility analysis. We conduct extensive experiments on 10 open-source and 8 closed-source MLLMs to reveal their vulnerability to multi-modal jailbreak. By unifying data, methodology, and evaluation into an open-source, reproducible platform, OmniSafeBench-MM provides a standardized foundation for future research. The code is released at https://github.com/jiaxiaojunQAQ/OmniSafeBench-MM.

Many popular programming languages, including C#, Java, and Python, support exceptions. Exceptions are thrown during program execution if an unwanted event happens, e.g., a method is invoked with an illegal argument value. Software developers write exceptional behavior tests (EBTs) to check that their code detects unwanted events and throws appropriate exceptions. Prior research studies have shown the importance of EBTs, but those studies also highlighted that developers put most of their efforts on "happy paths", e.g., paths without unwanted events. To help developers fill the gap, we present the first framework, dubbed exLong, that automatically generates EBTs. exLong is a large language model instruction-tuned from CodeLlama and embeds reasoning about traces that lead to throw statements, conditional expressions that guard throw statements, and non-exceptional behavior tests that execute similar traces. We compare exLong with the state-of-the-art models for test generation (CAT-LM) and one of the strongest foundation models (GPT3.5), as well as with analysis-based tools for test generation (Randoop and EvoSuite). Our results show that exLong outperforms existing models and tools. Furthermore, we contributed several pull requests to open-source projects and 23 EBTs generated by exLong were already accepted.

Coding agents are now proficient enough to generate complex software applications from a single prompt. As their capabilities have grown, human oversight has increasingly shifted from line-by-line code review toward hands-off evaluation of outcomes. However, recent studies have shown that such a transition exposes a critical risk: functional correctness alone does not guarantee a secure implementation. Despite growing attention to code security, training safer coding agents remains challenging because reliable security supervision is difficult to obtain at scale from real-world repositories. We introduce AuraForge to synthesize and validate executable security tests for training secure coding agents. Our approach combines attack-oriented test synthesis, language-extensible task construction, and safeguards against reward hacking. Using AuraForge, we construct AuraGym, a multi-language and multi-CWE executable training gym: 679 executable feature-implementation tasks from 344 real-world repositories across Python, JavaScript, and TypeScript, covering 177 CWE categories. On the subset with human-written security tests, AuraForge produces about 3 times as many test cases on average and reduces the false-positive rate by 83.23%, allowing alternative secure implementations to receive correct supervision. Training Qwen3.5-4B with synthesized security tests gains larger improvements than human-written security tests (average 19.7 FuncPass and 6.2 SecPass vs. 14.9 FuncPass and 4.4 SecPass) on three languages. These results demonstrate that AuraForge provides more diverse and reliable security supervision to train secure coding agents.

Current evaluations of LLM safety predominantly rely on severity-based taxonomies to assess the harmfulness of malicious queries. We argue that this formulation requires re-examination as it assumes uniform risk across all malicious queries, neglecting Execution Likelihood--the conditional probability of a threat being realized given the model's response. In this work, we introduce Expected Harm, a metric that weights the severity of a jailbreak by its execution likelihood, modeled as a function of execution cost. Through empirical analysis of state-of-the-art models, we reveal a systematic Inverse Risk Calibration: models disproportionately exhibit stronger refusal behaviors for low-likelihood (high-cost) threats while remaining vulnerable to high-likelihood (low-cost) queries. We demonstrate that this miscalibration creates a structural vulnerability: by exploiting this property, we increase the attack success rate of existing jailbreaks by up to 2times. Finally, we trace the root cause of this failure using linear probing, which reveals that while models encode severity in their latent space to drive refusal decisions, they possess no distinguishable internal representation of execution cost, making them "blind" to this critical dimension of risk.

Large language models (LLMs) have been widely applied to assist test generation with the source code under test provided as the context. This paper aims to answer the question: If the source code under test is incorrect, will LLMs be misguided when generating tests? The effectiveness of test cases is measured by their accuracy, coverage, and bug detection effectiveness. Our evaluation results with five open- and six closed-source LLMs on four datasets demonstrate that incorrect code can significantly mislead LLMs in generating correct, high-coverage, and bug-revealing tests. For instance, in the HumanEval dataset, LLMs achieve 80.45% test accuracy when provided with task descriptions and correct code, but only 57.12% when given task descriptions and incorrect code. For the APPS dataset, prompts with correct code yield tests that detect 39.85% of the bugs, while prompts with incorrect code detect only 19.61%. These findings have important implications for the deployment of LLM-based testing: using it on mature code may help protect against future regression, but on early-stage immature code, it may simply bake in errors. Our findings also underscore the need for further research to improve LLMs resilience against incorrect code in generating reliable and bug-revealing tests.

Consider a scenario where a harmfulness evaluation metric intended to filter unsafe responses from a Large Language Model. When applied to individual harmful prompt-response pairs, it correctly flags them as unsafe by assigning a high-risk score. Yet, if those same pairs are concatenated, the metrics decision unexpectedly reverses - labelling the combined content as safe with a low score, allowing the harmful text to bypass the filter. We found that multiple safety metrics, including advanced metrics such as GPT-based judges, exhibit this non-safe behaviour. Moreover, they show a strong sensitivity to input order: responses are often classified as safe if safe content appears first, regardless of any harmful content that follows, and vice versa. These findings underscore the importance of evaluating the safety of safety metrics, that is, the reliability of their output scores. To address this, we developed general, automatic, concatenation-based tests to assess key properties of these metrics. When applied in a model safety scenario, the tests revealed significant inconsistencies in harmfulness evaluations.

Agent skills extend AI agents with reusable instructions, tools, scripts, references, and workflows, establishing a security boundary distinct from both model safety and traditional package-malware detection. ClawHub Security Signals is a sanitized dataset of 67,453 latest public OpenClaw skill versions. Each row pairs redacted SKILL.md content and sanitized bundled files where present with a final ClawScan registry verdict and evidence from three scanner families: VirusTotal, static heuristic analysis, and NVIDIA SkillSpector. Rather than estimating malicious-skill prevalence, we study scanner disagreement. The three scanners rarely flag the same skills: any pair overlaps on at most 10.4% of their combined positives, only 0.69% of skills are flagged by all three, and 81.9% of flagged skills are identified by a single scanner. The disagreement is structured by attack surface. SkillSpector, which raises semantic agentic-risk advisories rather than malware-reputation signals, is positive for 19,209 of 25,504 suspicious rows (75.3%) but only 14 of 206 malicious rows (6.8%). The malicious-verdict region shows the inverse profile: 150 of 206 malicious rows (72.8%) are VirusTotal-positive, consistent with bundled-code malware evidence. These results show that agent-skill security requires layered governance, not single-scanner allow/block decisions. The corpus is released as a sanitized silver-standard dataset: labels are the registry's automated verdicts, not human-annotated ground truth, and the release represents an early, versioned snapshot intended to support the community while a human-annotated subset is developed. Further research is encouraged, including models tailored for skill-security triage.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are one of the most promising developments in the field of artificial intelligence, and the software engineering community has readily noticed their potential role in the software development life-cycle. Developers routinely ask LLMs to generate code snippets, increasing productivity but also potentially introducing ownership, privacy, correctness, and security issues. Previous work highlighted how code generated by mainstream commercial LLMs is often not safe, containing vulnerabilities, bugs, and code smells. In this paper, we present a framework that leverages testing and static analysis to assess the quality, and guide the self-improvement, of code generated by general-purpose, open-source LLMs. First, we ask LLMs to generate C code to solve a number of programming tasks. Then we employ ground-truth tests to assess the (in)correctness of the generated code, and a static analysis tool to detect potential safety vulnerabilities. Next, we assess the models ability to evaluate the generated code, by asking them to detect errors and vulnerabilities. Finally, we test the models ability to fix the generated code, providing the reports produced during the static analysis and incorrectness evaluation phases as feedback. Our results show that models often produce incorrect code, and that the generated code can include safety issues. Moreover, they perform very poorly at detecting either issue. On the positive side, we observe a substantial ability to fix flawed code when provided with information about failed tests or potential vulnerabilities, indicating a promising avenue for improving the safety of LLM-based code generation tools.

Automated vulnerability reproduction from CVE descriptions requires generating executable Proof-of-Concept (PoC) exploits and validating them in target environments. This process is critical in software security research and practice, yet remains time-consuming and demands specialized expertise when performed manually. While LLM agents show promise for automating this task, existing approaches often conflate exploring attack directions with fixing implementation details, which leads to unproductive debugging loops when reproduction fails. To address this, we propose CVE2PoC, an LLM-based dual-loop agent framework following a plan-execute-evaluate paradigm. The Strategic Planner analyzes vulnerability semantics and target code to produce structured attack plans. The Tactical Executor generates PoC code and validates it through progressive verification. The Adaptive Refiner evaluates execution results and routes failures to different loops: the Tactical Loop for code-level refinement, while the Strategic Loop for attack strategy replanning. This dual-loop design enables the framework to escape ineffective debugging by matching remediation to failure type. Evaluation on two benchmarks covering 617 real-world vulnerabilities demonstrates that CVE2PoC achieves 82.9% and 54.3% reproduction success rates on SecBench.js and PatchEval, respectively, outperforming the best baseline by 11.3% and 20.4%. Human evaluation confirms that generated PoCs achieve comparable code quality to human-written exploits in readability and reusability.

Recent agent benchmarks increasingly ground evaluation in executable environments, from code repair to web navigation, app APIs, and function calling. Yet completing consequential work beyond code requires more than producing a plausible response or valid tool call: agents must gather missing information over multiple turns, follow domain policies, coordinate dependent tools, and realize the correct persistent state transition without collateral effects. In this paper, we introduce Thinkingbox, a sandbox for tool-agent-user interaction that provides isolated MCP-compatible tool sessions, complete execution traces, and outcome evaluation over terminal backend state. Built on this sandbox, Thinkingbox-bench contains 507 policy-conditioned workflows across numerous scenarios, including retail, hospitality, auto insurance, neobank internal IT, and consulting IT/HR support. Each attempt is evaluated by task-specific executable checks that accept valid trajectories while rejecting wrong, missing, or extra effects; designated tasks additionally check required properties of the final response. Across proprietary and open-weight models, the strongest achieves 65.36% pass@1, but only 25.25% pass^20. Moreover, many failed trials show clean termination and valid state-changing actions, showing that response or tool-call-level signals are not clear proxies for end-to-end task completion. Thinkingbox-bench reveals a large gap between occasionally finding a successful trajectory and reliably completing stateful business tasks. We release both Thinkingbox and Thinkingbox-Bench: https://github.com/microsoft/thinkingbox

Recent advances in large language models for test case generation have improved branch coverage via prompt-engineered mutations. However, they still lack principled mechanisms for steering models toward specific high-risk execution branches, limiting their effectiveness for discovering subtle bugs and security vulnerabilities. We propose GLMTest, the first program structure-aware LLM framework for targeted test case generation that seamlessly integrates code property graphs and code semantics using a graph neural network and a language model to condition test case generation on execution branches. This structured conditioning enables controllable and branch-targeted test case generation, thereby potentially enhancing bug and security risk discovery. Experiments on real-world projects show that GLMTest built on a Qwen2.5-Coder-7B-Instruct model improves branch accuracy from 27.4% to 50.2% on TestGenEval benchmark compared with state-of-the-art LLMs, i.e., Claude-Sonnet-4.5 and GPT-4o-mini.

Current LLM safety benchmarks predominantly rely on binary safe or unsafe labels, lacking explanatory depth and suffering from low consistency across automated judges. To address this, we introduce DiagSafe, a diagnostic evaluation framework that moves beyond binary classification by employing prompt-level rubrics. Grounded in globally applicable AI safety policies, each rubric provides explicit criteria along two dimensions: safety, which targets concrete harms with specific exemptions to suppress false positives, and usefulness, which independently evaluates instruction fulfillment. To ensure a robust and realistic evaluation, we construct a bilingual (English-Chinese) benchmark grounded in a comprehensive 84-label safety taxonomy, consisting of two subsets: DiagBase, which covers single- and multi-turn prompts with direct harmful queries and template-based jailbreaks, and DiagAttack, which embeds harmful intents into complex instruction-following tasks to form challenging instruction attacks. Extensive experiments demonstrate that DiagSafe significantly enhances the reliability of LLM-as-a-judge evaluation, achieving 95.34% agreement with human annotations -- substantially higher than the 69%-87% achieved by the baselines -- and high inter-judge consistency (Cohen's κ = 0.864). Furthermore, applying our framework reveals that leading LLMs differ markedly in their unsafe rates, and each model also exhibits unique vulnerabilities along different dimensions. In addition, we observe that models are particularly susceptible in Chinese and multi-turn contexts. Ultimately, DiagSafe provides a reliable and explainable tool for auditing and optimizing LLM alignment.

MOLOT (Malicious Operational Logic Observation Transformer) is a static malicious-code detection system designed for SAST setup where package metadata, maintainer history, and dynamic execution traces may be unavailable or unreliable. The system represents source code as behavior sequences derived from static call graphs, includes an explanation stage that ranks suspicious behavior activities and maps them back to source-code locations. The approach is evaluated on Python and JavaScript packages from PyPI and npm, compared with opensource detection tools, and validated under product constraints including runtime, memory use, and false-positive rates observed in a real moderation workflow. We also release Open Malicious-Code Bench, a public benchmark for reproducible evaluation of malicious-package detection methods. The results show that static behavior-sequence modeling can provide accurate, explainable, and deployable malicious-code detection for modern DevSecOps workflows.

Personal AI agents like OpenClaw run with elevated privileges on users' local machines, where a single successful prompt injection can leak credentials, redirect financial transactions, or destroy files. This threat goes well beyond conventional text-level jailbreaks, yet existing safety evaluations fall short: most test models in isolated chat settings, rely on synthetic environments, and do not account for how the agent framework itself shapes safety outcomes. We introduce CLAWSAFETY, a benchmark of 120 adversarial test scenarios organized along three dimensions (harm domain, attack vector, and harmful action type) and grounded in realistic, high-privilege professional workspaces spanning software engineering, finance, healthcare, law, and DevOps. Each test case embeds adversarial content in one of three channels the agent encounters during normal work: workspace skill files, emails from trusted senders, and web pages. We evaluate five frontier LLMs as agent backbones, running 2,520 sandboxed trials across all configurations. Attack success rates (ASR) range from 40\% to 75\% across models and vary sharply by injection vector, with skill instructions (highest trust) consistently more dangerous than email or web content. Action-trace analysis reveals that the strongest model maintains hard boundaries against credential forwarding and destructive actions, while weaker models permit both. Cross-scaffold experiments on three agent frameworks further demonstrate that safety is not determined by the backbone model alone but depends on the full deployment stack, calling for safety evaluation that treats model and framework as joint variables. Code and data will be available at: https://weibowen555.github.io/ClawSafety/.

As large language models (LLMs) increasingly integrate native code interpreters, they enable powerful real-time execution capabilities, substantially expanding their utility. However, such integrations introduce potential system-level cybersecurity threats, fundamentally different from prompt-based vulnerabilities. To systematically evaluate these interpreter-specific risks, we propose CIRCLE (Code-Interpreter Resilience Check for LLM Exploits), a simple benchmark comprising 1,260 prompts targeting CPU, memory, and disk resource exhaustion. Each risk category includes explicitly malicious ("direct") and plausibly benign ("indirect") prompt variants. Our automated evaluation framework assesses not only whether LLMs refuse or generates risky code, but also executes the generated code within the interpreter environment to evaluate code correctness, simplifications made by the LLM to make the code safe, or execution timeouts. Evaluating 7 commercially available models from OpenAI and Google, we uncover significant and inconsistent vulnerabilities. For instance, evaluations show substantial disparities even within providers - OpenAI's o4-mini correctly refuses risky requests at 7.1%, notably higher rates compared to GPT-4.1 at 0.5%. Results particularly underscore that indirect, socially-engineered prompts substantially weaken model defenses. This highlights an urgent need for interpreter-specific cybersecurity benchmarks, dedicated mitigation tools (e.g., guardrails), and clear industry standards to guide safe and responsible deployment of LLM interpreter integrations. The benchmark dataset and evaluation code are publicly released to foster further research.

Reusable Web-agent verification requires a rule to follow changing requirements and support subsequent execution. We introduce AgentProofBench, which connects paired tests of a frozen acceptance rule to execution from identical saved openings. The resource spans 97 tasks, 79 families, and four Web services. Experiments with DeepSeek Flash/Pro establish two linked measurements. Across 48 families, complete-panel and decision-replay tests retain 82/96 Flash and 79/96 Pro source programs; paired reuse-rebuild BA intervals are [-5.47, 1.57] and [-10.16, 0.00] percentage points. Across 22 execution families, deployment-state panel correctness separates program assignments whose two saved openings are both delivered correctly: 32/33 assignments with error-free panels, versus 1/11 with panel errors. All reference-defined program-gate regressions and withheld deliveries occur in the latter group. Neutral continuation attains the highest correct delivery under the tested generic feedback, providing a concrete baseline for measuring the value added by a gate. Released instructions, states, programs, reference rules, and trajectories connect each test failure to its execution consequences. AgentProofBench makes reusable verification assessable at both the requirement and policy levels.

AI agents now report vulnerabilities faster than maintainers can review them. Reports often depend on security properties specific to the application, and require considerable human labor to process. To mitigate this, we introduce a framework for evaluating vulnerability reports via probes, executable checks of security properties. A reported exploit is evaluated by replaying it against the application and running the probes: a triggered probe indicates both that the exploit succeeded and which security property it violated. As a probe encodes a security property rather than a known vulnerability, it can detect vulnerabilities that were not known when the probe was written. We instantiate the framework as MobileCybench, a benchmark for vulnerability discovery by AI agents in 13 Android applications, with 495 probes written and reviewed by the authors. We evaluate 5 coding agents (OpenCode with GPT-5.5, GPT-5.6-Sol, and GLM-5.2; Claude Code with Opus 4.8 and Opus 5) under 4 settings: as a malicious app on the victim's device or as a remote attacker with a low-privilege account, each with either only an obfuscated APK or access to the application's source code. Given only the obfuscated APK, the top agent, OpenCode with GPT-5.6-Sol, triggers probes in 53.8% of applications in the malicious-app setting and 16.7% in the remote-attacker setting. With source code, the trigger rate across all agents and both attack settings increases from 28.8% to 32.8%. Building and running the benchmark surfaced 23 previously unreported vulnerabilities, the majority of which have been confirmed by maintainers.

We introduce EvilGenie, a benchmark for reward hacking in programming settings. We source problems from LiveCodeBench and create an environment in which agents can easily reward hack, such as by hardcoding test cases or editing the testing files. We measure reward hacking in three ways: held out unit tests, LLM judges, and test file edit detection. We verify these methods against human review and each other. We find the LLM judge to be highly effective at detecting reward hacking in unambiguous cases, and observe only minimal improvement from the use of held out test cases. In addition to testing many models using Inspect's basic\_agent scaffold, we also measure reward hacking rates for three popular proprietary coding agents: OpenAI's Codex, Anthropic's Claude Code, and Google's Gemini CLI. We observe explicit reward hacking by both Codex and Claude Code, and misaligned behavior by all three agents. Our codebase can be found at https://github.com/JonathanGabor/evilgenie_inspect .

LLM coding agents are increasingly deployed to act autonomously on real production infrastructure. They execute shell commands, modify repositories, and call operational APIs. However, completing a task is not sufficient for safety. A wrong action can cause severe consequences. Existing agent benchmarks largely emphasize task completion, leaving open how agents behave under benign but underspecified instructions. We present UnderSpecBench, a benchmark for measuring action-boundary violations in coding agents (i.e., Claude Code, Codex, and OpenCode) on DevOps tasks. UnderSpecBench includes 69 task families grounded in documented incidents, CVEs, or tool behavior and organized across four DevOps capability domains and nine operational control surfaces. To isolate underspecification from task difficulty, each task keeps the same environment and ground-truth safe action while varying the instruction along three axes: intent clarity, target certainty, and blast radius. The resulting 2,208 prompt variants are evaluated with deterministic, side-effect-based oracles that separate Safe Success, Wrong Target, and OverScope outcomes; non-action runs are further classified as clarification, refusal, or deferment. Across five agent x model configurations using OpenCode, Claude Code, and Codex, the evaluation results show that underspecification does not mainly make agents fail; it makes them guess. 55.8-67.8% of runs violate at least one boundary. Target underspecification sharply degrades action quality, while blast-radius cues barely reduce action propensity. These findings show that completion-centric evaluation can overstate safe autonomy and motivate mitigations at the model, harness, and system layer.

Agent benchmarks often evaluate only final answers even when agents run on stateful runtimes. We argue this under-specifies what is being evaluated: the proper unit is a declared model-plus-runtime configuration whose failures can occur in evidence acquisition, runtime routing, safety boundaries, or repeated execution. We present ClawProBench, a trace-aware benchmark for runtime-native agent evaluation instantiated on OpenClaw, a live agent runtime with workspace tools and native surfaces for browsing, memory, messaging, scheduling, skills, and subagents. ClawProBench defines two tracks: a 102-scenario full profile with live workspace and native-runtime routing tasks, and a frozen 68-scenario holdout with closed-world JSON output contracts for robust ranking. Trials are scored from execution traces via a safety-gated formula combining correctness, process quality, and efficiency, preserving failure evidence for audit. Our anonymous artifact includes benchmark definitions, scoring code, manifests and sanitized traces. We evaluate 68 configurations on the full profile and 37 on holdout. The top safety-gated average trace score is 0.7671. Native-runtime tasks underperform workspace-live tasks (0.5238 vs. 0.6415). On holdout, pass@k-any outperforms strict three-trial pass (0.6638 vs. 0.2890), while full-profile and holdout rankings show weak alignment (Spearman 0.1300). Rankings based purely on correctness differ substantially from process-aware, safety-gated and strict-pass views. Final-answer leaderboards may hide native-surface weaknesses, one-off successes and trace-local agent failure modes.

With the rapidly increasing capabilities and adoption of code agents for AI-assisted coding, safety concerns, such as generating or executing risky code, have become significant barriers to the real-world deployment of these agents. To provide comprehensive and practical evaluations on the safety of code agents, we propose RedCode, a benchmark for risky code execution and generation: (1) RedCode-Exec provides challenging prompts that could lead to risky code execution, aiming to evaluate code agents' ability to recognize and handle unsafe code. We provide a total of 4,050 risky test cases in Python and Bash tasks with diverse input formats including code snippets and natural text. They covers 25 types of critical vulnerabilities spanning 8 domains (e.g., websites, file systems). We provide Docker environments and design corresponding evaluation metrics to assess their execution results. (2) RedCode-Gen provides 160 prompts with function signatures and docstrings as input to assess whether code agents will follow instructions to generate harmful code or software. Our empirical findings, derived from evaluating three agent frameworks based on 19 LLMs, provide insights into code agents' vulnerabilities. For instance, evaluations on RedCode-Exec show that agents are more likely to reject executing risky operations on the operating system, but are less likely to reject executing technically buggy code, indicating high risks. Risky operations described in natural text lead to a lower rejection rate than those in code format. Additionally, evaluations on RedCode-Gen show that more capable base models and agents with stronger overall coding abilities, such as GPT4, tend to produce more sophisticated and effective harmful software. Our findings highlight the need for stringent safety evaluations for diverse code agents. Our dataset and code are available at https://github.com/AI-secure/RedCode.

Bug validation asks a coding agent to produce an executable witness for a reported bug. The witness combines a concrete input with a testing harness and exposes faulty behavior during execution. Such evidence makes audit findings actionable, yet benchmark evaluation is difficult when cases reuse public historical bugs and witnesses or require manual construction. We present WitnessGym, an automated framework for constructing bug-validation benchmarks through bug injection. It injects bugs into test-reached paths of real projects, rebuilds each project, and retains cases exposed by a construction-time witness. Bug specifications and execution adapters allow extension to additional bug types and languages. Bug-preserving transformations vary the surrounding structure while preserving the witness behavior. Based on real-world Java projects with test suites, WitnessGym automatically constructs 1,300 benchmark cases. The injected patches resemble historical bug patches and are difficult for the two evaluated models to distinguish in blinded comparisons. We evaluate four coding agent frameworks in six framework/model pairings across bug types, execution contexts, and transformation depths. Witness construction remains difficult even when the bug pattern is known. Our framework, benchmark cases, and evaluation scripts are available.

Existing agent safety benchmarks report binary accuracy, conflating early intervention with post-mortem analysis. A detector that flags a violation at step 8 enables intervention; one that reports it at step 48 provides only forensic value. This distinction is critical, yet current benchmarks cannot measure it. We introduce StepShield, the first benchmark to evaluate when violations are detected, not just whether. StepShield contains 9,213 code agent trajectories, including 1,278 meticulously annotated training pairs and a 7,935-trajectory test set with a realistic 8.1% rogue rate. Rogue behaviors are grounded in real-world security incidents across six categories. We propose three novel temporal metrics: Early Intervention Rate (EIR), Intervention Gap, and Tokens Saved. Surprisingly, our evaluation reveals that an LLM-based judge achieves 59% EIR while a static analyzer achieves only 26%, a 2.3x performance gap that is entirely invisible to standard accuracy metrics. We further show that early detection has direct economic benefits: our cascaded HybridGuard detector reduces monitoring costs by 75% and projects to $108M in cumulative savings over five years at enterprise scale. By shifting the focus of evaluation from whether to when, StepShield provides a new foundation for building safer and more economically viable AI agents. The code and data are released under an Apache 2.0 license.

Computer-use agents (CUAs) can now autonomously complete complex tasks in real digital environments, but when misled, they can also be used to automate harmful actions programmatically. Existing safety evaluations largely target explicit threats such as misuse and prompt injection, but overlook a subtle yet critical setting where user instructions are entirely benign and harm arises from the task context or execution outcome. We introduce OS-BLIND, a benchmark that evaluates CUAs under unintended attack conditions, comprising 300 human-crafted tasks across 12 categories, 8 applications, and 2 threat clusters: environment-embedded threats and agent-initiated harms. Our evaluation on frontier models and agentic frameworks reveals that most CUAs exceed 90% attack success rate (ASR), and even the safety-aligned Claude 4.5 Sonnet reaches 73.0% ASR. More interestingly, this vulnerability becomes even more severe, with ASR rising from 73.0% to 92.7% when Claude 4.5 Sonnet is deployed in multi-agent systems. Our analysis further shows that existing safety defenses provide limited protection when user instructions are benign. Safety alignment primarily activates within the first few steps and rarely re-engages during subsequent execution. In multi-agent systems, decomposed subtasks obscure the harmful intent from the model, causing safety-aligned models to fail. We will release our OS-BLIND to encourage the broader research community to further investigate and address these safety challenges.

We introduce TestCase-Eval, a new benchmark for systematic evaluation of LLMs in test-case generation. TestCase-Eval includes 500 algorithm problems and 100,000 human-crafted solutions from the Codeforces platform. It focuses on two pivotal tasks: (1) Fault Coverage, which measures how well LLM-generated test sets probe diverse input scenarios and cover a wide range of potential failure modes. (2) Fault Exposure, which evaluates whether LLMs can craft a tailored test input that reveals a specific incorrect code implementation. We provide a comprehensive assessment of 19 state-of-the-art open-source and proprietary LLMs on TestCase-Eval, offering insights into their strengths and limitations in generating effective test cases for algorithm problems.

Automated red teaming holds substantial promise for uncovering and mitigating the risks associated with the malicious use of large language models (LLMs), yet the field lacks a standardized evaluation framework to rigorously assess new methods. To address this issue, we introduce HarmBench, a standardized evaluation framework for automated red teaming. We identify several desirable properties previously unaccounted for in red teaming evaluations and systematically design HarmBench to meet these criteria. Using HarmBench, we conduct a large-scale comparison of 18 red teaming methods and 33 target LLMs and defenses, yielding novel insights. We also introduce a highly efficient adversarial training method that greatly enhances LLM robustness across a wide range of attacks, demonstrating how HarmBench enables codevelopment of attacks and defenses. We open source HarmBench at https://github.com/centerforaisafety/HarmBench.

Large language models (LLMs) can serve as helpful assistants, yet they can equally function as harm amplifiers that enable malicious users to achieve harmful outcomes beyond their capabilities through extended interactions. This risk manifests along two axes, i.e., democratizing domain expertise that allows novices to produce specialized harmful content, and scaling harmful operations at volumes that manual effort cannot match. Existing works, however, often overlook how LLMs compound harm across multi-turn conversations. We introduce HarmAmp, a new benchmark for multi-turn harm amplification scenarios spanning twelve risk categories. Each scenario is grounded in real-world threats and satisfies rigorous criteria, i.e., substantive amplification, operational specificity, and multi-turn necessity. We further propose TrajSafe, a proactive monitor that anticipates harmful trajectories and intervenes through actions such as probing users' genuine intents and steering the models towards safer completion. Our extensive experiments demonstrate that TrajSafe significantly reduces the harmfulness incurred in multi-turn interactions while preserving a low over-refusal rate and the target model's general capabilities. Our work offers a promising paradigm to alleviate the nuanced safety risks in LLM interactions.

The integration of AI-powered coding agents into Continuous Integration/Continuous Delivery (CI/CD) pipelines has fundamentally altered how software verification is conducted. While these agents successfully automate the test generation, current evaluation benchmarks (e.g., SWE-bench) largely focus on pass-rates rather than the intrinsic quality of the generated tests. This raises the possibility of "stealth technical debt", in which test suites pass execution but do not offer comprehensive coverage or semantic value. We address this methodological gap through a large-scale, empirical comparison of 204,673 test artifacts which comprises of 24,941 human-authored files and 179,732 agent-generated files; sourced from the AIDev dataset. Using the Abstract Syntax Tree (AST) parsing with Python's naive ast module, we implemented a "white-box" static analysis framework to evaluate three quality dimensions: Assertion Strength (RQ1), Edge-Case Coverage (RQ2), and Flakiness Potential (RQ3). Our results present a nuanced inversion of traditional assumptions. AI agents performed better than humans in Edge-Case Coverage, with almost twice the variety of boundary checks (Variety Score: 0.62 vs 0.32) and a higher frequency of null-safety testing (13.40% vs. 8.3%), even though human developers had a slight advantage in Assertion Strength (88.1% strong assertions vs. 85.37% for agents). But this thoroughness comes at a price: due mostly to their reliance on file I/O and non-deterministic logic, agent-generated tests exhibited a higher risk of flakiness (Candidate Rate: 0.41 vs. 0.30). These findings suggest that while AI agents excel at rigorous boundary testing, they lack the "environmental awareness" needed to write stable, hermetic tests.

Frontier large language models (LLMs) safety evaluation has largely treated harmful generation as an attack outcome rather than as an object of analysis. Consequently, little is known about the harmful outputs produced during model misbehavior, partly because large-scale, high-quality collections of frontier-LLM misbehavior are difficult to obtain. To address this gap, we introduce HarmProfile, a content-centric benchmark dataset that collects model misbehavior across diverse harm categories and model families, and defines the resulting harmful-output distribution as a model-level risk profile. The premise is that, just as linguistic behavior can be characterized from an utterance corpus, model risk can be characterized from the content, severity, and variation of its safety failures. HarmProfile contains over 80,000 validated artifacts from 23 frontier LLMs across 13 model families, organized into 15 harm categories and 57 subcategories. Using this corpus, we find that frontier LLMs reliably produce harmful content at scale, yet exhibit distinct risk profiles; both harmfulness and diversity grow with model capability, suggesting that frontier LLMs may appear safe yet harbor increasingly dangerous knowledge beneath the alignment surface. Our source code is available at https://github.com/fresh-ma/HarmProfile .

The rapid proliferation of LLM-based autonomous agents in real operating system environments introduces a new category of safety risk beyond content safety: behavior jailbreak, where an adversary induces an agent to execute dangerous OS-level operations with irreversible consequences. Existing benchmarks either evaluate safety at the semantic layer alone, missing physical-layer harms, or fail to isolate test cases, letting earlier runs contaminate later ones. We present LITMUS (LLM-agents In-OS Testing for Measuring Unsafe Subversion), a benchmark addressing both gaps via a semantic-physical dual verification mechanism and OS-level state rollback. LITMUS comprises 819 high-risk test cases organized into one harmful seed subset and six attack-extended subsets covering three adversarial paradigms (jailbreak speaking, skill injection, and entity wrapping), plus a fully automated multi-agent evaluation framework judging behavior at both conversational and OS-level physical layers. Evaluation across frontier agents reveals three findings: (1) current agents lack effective safety awareness, with strong models (e.g., Claude Sonnet 4.6) still executing 40.64% of high-risk operations; (2) agents exhibit pervasive Execution Hallucination (EH), verbally refusing a request while the dangerous operation has already completed at the system level, invisible to every prior semantic-only framework; and (3) skill injection and entity wrapping attacks achieve high success rates, exposing pronounced agent vulnerabilities. LITMUS provides the first standardized platform for reproducible, physically grounded behavioral safety evaluation of LLM agents in real OS environments.

LLM agents that invoke privileged tools are vulnerable to indirect prompt injection (IPI), in which adversarial instructions embedded in retrieved data hijack the agent's actions. A growing body of work evaluates defenses against IPI, but the validity of that evaluation is rarely examined. We audit an IPI benchmark and its harness and identify four defect classes -- silent payload non-delivery, attack success scored by tool identity rather than arguments, false-rejection rate conflated with model incapacity, and the absence of an audit trail -- each of which yields a plausible, publishable, and incorrect number. We quantify the distortion by re-scoring identical execution traces under the defective and corrected definitions: on real agent behaviour, the tool-identity scorer reports a 21.7% attack-success rate where the true argument-level rate is 1.2%. In the sharpest case, an open model previously reported at 62.8% registers 0% under the corrected harness -- the prior figure largely an artifact of undelivered payloads and identity-level scoring. We release a harness whose construction makes each defect unrepresentable -- machine-checkable payload placement, argument-level attacker predicates, per-scenario environments, and mandatory trace persistence -- and use it to report three quantities the field does not: whether a compromised agent discloses the attack, the full security/utility operating curve of an LLM-judge defense, and tool-calling capability disentangled from defensive over-blocking. A corrected harness further overturns a reported "capability barrier": a model deemed incapable of tool use is in fact fully capable, its earlier result an artifact of environment mismatch. We argue that evaluation validity is a prerequisite for, not a footnote to, defense claims in agentic security, and provide an instrument that enforces it.

Industrial advertising recommender systems are continually improved through architecture modifications, yet production iteration remains expert-intensive because coordinated changes to model topology, feature configuration, and interaction modules must satisfy strict interface, resource, and serving constraints. AutoML is limited to predefined search spaces, while generic coding agents verify runnability rather than recommender-specific semantic validity. Executable candidates may therefore violate architectural contracts, while the lack of structured reuse of semantic diagnostics and evaluation outcomes can lead to repeated invalid or ineffective modifications. We present NOVA, a verification-aware agent harness that organizes production architecture modification as multi-round search over concrete implementations within a fixed evaluation budget. At each round, NOVA generates multiple candidates under production constraints, rejects semantic violations, and ranks the valid survivors for local testing and offline evaluation. Across rounds, trajectory memory synthesizes semantic diagnostics, local-test outcomes, and offline metric changes into modification directions and forbidden patterns that guide subsequent search. Under the same maximum offline-evaluation budget for automated methods, NOVA achieves the highest effective pass rate, reaching 53.3% on ScaleUp and 51.7% on Literature-to-Production tasks. In a production A/B test covering 5% of traffic in an advertising system serving over one billion users, the selected Literature-to-Production candidate yields GMV gains of +1.25%, +1.70%, and +2.02% across three major pCVR objectives, with corresponding relative reductions in absolute pCVR bias of 58.8%, 66.7%, and 37.3%, respectively.

Large language models (LLMs) introduce new security risks, but there are few comprehensive evaluation suites to measure and reduce these risks. We present BenchmarkName, a novel benchmark to quantify LLM security risks and capabilities. We introduce two new areas for testing: prompt injection and code interpreter abuse. We evaluated multiple state-of-the-art (SOTA) LLMs, including GPT-4, Mistral, Meta Llama 3 70B-Instruct, and Code Llama. Our results show that conditioning away risk of attack remains an unsolved problem; for example, all tested models showed between 26% and 41% successful prompt injection tests. We further introduce the safety-utility tradeoff: conditioning an LLM to reject unsafe prompts can cause the LLM to falsely reject answering benign prompts, which lowers utility. We propose quantifying this tradeoff using False Refusal Rate (FRR). As an illustration, we introduce a novel test set to quantify FRR for cyberattack helpfulness risk. We find many LLMs able to successfully comply with "borderline" benign requests while still rejecting most unsafe requests. Finally, we quantify the utility of LLMs for automating a core cybersecurity task, that of exploiting software vulnerabilities. This is important because the offensive capabilities of LLMs are of intense interest; we quantify this by creating novel test sets for four representative problems. We find that models with coding capabilities perform better than those without, but that further work is needed for LLMs to become proficient at exploit generation. Our code is open source and can be used to evaluate other LLMs.

Coding agents increasingly rely on automated approvers to decide whether a proposed shell command may run. Existing approvers, from rule-based checkers to guardrail models and deployed permission classifiers, base their decisions on the text of the request and command. Yet a command's behavior depends on the code it invokes and the state of the workspace, and systems that observe file changes leave the assessment to the agent or a human after execution. We present Caper, a consequence-aware approval mechanism that pre-executes each command in a snapshotted sandbox, provides an independent approver with a bounded report of its observed effects, commits allowed commands, and rolls back blocked ones with a reason the agent can act on. Compared with six existing systems, Caper achieves the lowest harmful-outcome rate on SABER (6.7% versus at least 14.8%) and YoloFS-Ext, a benchmark we build in which harmful behavior is hidden inside invoked tools (7.8% versus at least 35.3%), while blocking 1.0% of the safe twins of the dangerous tasks in YoloFS-Ext.

Despite extensive safety alignment efforts, large language models (LLMs) remain vulnerable to jailbreak attacks that elicit harmful behavior. While existing studies predominantly focus on attack methods that require technical expertise, two critical questions remain underexplored: (1) Are jailbroken responses truly useful in enabling average users to carry out harmful actions? (2) Do safety vulnerabilities exist in more common, simple human-LLM interactions? In this paper, we demonstrate that LLM responses most effectively facilitate harmful actions when they are both actionable and informative--two attributes easily elicited in multi-step, multilingual interactions. Using this insight, we propose HarmScore, a jailbreak metric that measures how effectively an LLM response enables harmful actions, and Speak Easy, a simple multi-step, multilingual attack framework. Notably, by incorporating Speak Easy into direct request and jailbreak baselines, we see an average absolute increase of 0.319 in Attack Success Rate and 0.426 in HarmScore in both open-source and proprietary LLMs across four safety benchmarks. Our work reveals a critical yet often overlooked vulnerability: Malicious users can easily exploit common interaction patterns for harmful intentions.

Despite extensive safety alignment, large language models remain vulnerable to jailbreak attacks. Existing optimization-based attacks share a single objective: maximize a token-level proxy of victim compliance---such as the likelihood of an affirmative prefix---computed on the prompt rather than the decoded reply. This proxy cannot distinguish a cautious hedge from a fully actionable harmful answer, leaving the search blind to what the model actually says. We propose ECHO (Evaluation-Conditioned Harmfulness Optimization), which replaces the compliance proxy with response-level, continuous harmfulness scores from HarmSig, a 1.7B regressor grounded in actual harmful capability. ECHO couples HarmSig with five word-level perturbation operators and Keyword-Anchored Beam Search with global top-m memory, under a strict black-box threat model. Across five open-weight victims on AdvBench, ECHO achieves up to 0.898 StrongREJECT mean score and 89.23% HarmBench success. Our code is publicly available at https://github.com/STANWYW/echo.

Execution feedback can guide coding agents toward correct repository repairs, but only when the tests capture the behavior requested by the issue. Agent-generated tests can encode incomplete or incorrect behavioral targets; when the same trajectory writes both the patch and the test, their errors can agree and create false confidence. We introduce ExecCritic, combining a test--verify--revise scaffold with a role-specific reinforcement learning recipe for training agents within it. The scaffold separates test construction from source-code repair: a Test agent independently generates repository-native tests, a fail-closed harness qualifies and freezes them, and a Repair agent revises source code from their execution feedback without changing the tests. Both roles use Qwen-3.5-35B-A3B as the backbone and are trained separately. In Learn to Test, the Test agent learns to produce behaviorally valid tests that distinguish correct from incorrect patches. In Test to Improve, the Repair agent learns both direct task resolution and feedback-guided revision. On SWE-bench Verified, test quality determines whether feedback helps: holding the base Repair agent fixed, tests from the base Test agent reduce resolved rate from a no-test baseline of 61.2% to 57.3%, whereas tests from GPT-5.6-sol raise it to 65.3%. Role-specific post-training raises the Qwen Test agent's Base-to-Gold success from 22.2% to 62.2%; composing the two post-trained Qwen agents reaches 72.6%, an 11.4-point gain over the original no-test baseline without stronger-model or Oracle feedback at evaluation time. Code is publicly available at https://github.com/MSR-Orchard/execcritic.

In this study, we tackle a growing concern around the safety and ethical use of large language models (LLMs). Despite their potential, these models can be tricked into producing harmful or unethical content through various sophisticated methods, including 'jailbreaking' techniques and targeted manipulation. Our work zeroes in on a specific issue: to what extent LLMs can be led astray by asking them to generate responses that are instruction-centric such as a pseudocode, a program or a software snippet as opposed to vanilla text. To investigate this question, we introduce TechHazardQA, a dataset containing complex queries which should be answered in both text and instruction-centric formats (e.g., pseudocodes), aimed at identifying triggers for unethical responses. We query a series of LLMs -- Llama-2-13b, Llama-2-7b, Mistral-V2 and Mistral 8X7B -- and ask them to generate both text and instruction-centric responses. For evaluation we report the harmfulness score metric as well as judgements from GPT-4 and humans. Overall, we observe that asking LLMs to produce instruction-centric responses enhances the unethical response generation by ~2-38% across the models. As an additional objective, we investigate the impact of model editing using the ROME technique, which further increases the propensity for generating undesirable content. In particular, asking edited LLMs to generate instruction-centric responses further increases the unethical response generation by ~3-16% across the different models.

Recent advances in automated test generation utilises language models to produce unit tests. While effective, language models tend to generate many incorrect tests with respect to both syntax and semantics. Although such incorrect tests can be easily detected and discarded, they constitute a "missed opportunity" -- if fixed, they are often valuable as they directly add testing value (they effectively target the underlying program logic to be tested) and indirectly form good seeds for generating additional tests. To this end, we propose a simple technique for repairing some of these incorrect tests through a combination of rule-based static analysis and re-prompting. We evaluate this simple approach, named YATE, on a set of 6 open-source projects and show that it can effectively produce tests that cover on average 32.06% more lines and kill 21.77% more mutants than a plain LLM-based method. We also compare YATE with four other LLM-based methods, namely HITS, SYMPROMPT, TESTSPARK and COVERUP and show that it produces tests that cover substantially more code. YATE achieves 22% higher line coverage, 20% higher branch coverage and kill 20% more mutants at a comparable cost (number of calls to LLMs).

Reasoning models can remain capable of solving a task while still defaulting to cheaper but misleading shortcuts. This creates a central oversight problem: when a model gives an answer with plausible but incomplete reasoning, can an overseer determine whether that output should be trusted? To study this problem, we introduce PyINE, a framework for scalable elicitation and oversight using instrumented Python programs as a verifiable execution substrate. In PyINE, programs define task environments, execution traces provide authoritative labels for outcomes and intermediate facts, and task variants can be generated mechanically rather than through static human annotation. We instantiate the framework in PyINE-v1, a first release built from nearly one million deterministic execution traces and over 500,000 matched LLM-generated code variants used for counterfactual evaluation. Using standard RL with verifiable rewards on cue-varied tasks, we train a shortcut-following model that improves substantially at predicting execution outcomes while still making systematic errors when misleading human-facing cues conflict with the program's realized behavior. We then evaluate activation probes, trained text classifiers, prompted judges, and a lightweight debate protocol as overseers of this model. We find that performance pooled at the dataset level can hide weak coverage of the failures that matter most: cheap learned overseers often miss rare shortcut-driven errors, while stronger model-based checks are more balanced but substantially costlier and harder to turn into reliable thresholded decisions. PyINE-v1 turns this failure-mode coverage problem into a reusable experimental setting for developing oversight methods that are verifiable, failure-mode-aware, and cost-sensitive.

The rise of AI agent frameworks has introduced agent skills, modular packages containing instructions and executable code that dynamically extend agent capabilities. While this architecture enables powerful customization, skills execute with implicit trust and minimal vetting, creating a significant yet uncharacterized attack surface. We conduct the first large-scale empirical security analysis of this emerging ecosystem, collecting 42,447 skills from two major marketplaces and systematically analyzing 31,132 using SkillScan, a multi-stage detection framework integrating static analysis with LLM-based semantic classification. Our findings reveal pervasive security risks: 26.1% of skills contain at least one vulnerability, spanning 14 distinct patterns across four categories: prompt injection, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, and supply chain risks. Data exfiltration (13.3%) and privilege escalation (11.8%) are most prevalent, while 5.2% of skills exhibit high-severity patterns strongly suggesting malicious intent. We find that skills bundling executable scripts are 2.12x more likely to contain vulnerabilities than instruction-only skills (OR=2.12, p<0.001). Our contributions include: (1) a grounded vulnerability taxonomy derived from 8,126 vulnerable skills, (2) a validated detection methodology achieving 86.7% precision and 82.5% recall, and (3) an open dataset and detection toolkit to support future research. These results demonstrate an urgent need for capability-based permission systems and mandatory security vetting before this attack vector is further exploited.

Software vulnerabilities are often detected via taint analysis, penetration testing, or fuzzing. They are also found via unit tests that exercise security-sensitive behavior with specific inputs, called vulnerability-witnessing tests. Generative AI models could help developers in writing them, but they require many examples to learn from, which are currently scarce. This paper introduces VuTeCo, an AI-driven framework for collecting examples of vulnerability-witnessing tests from Java repositories. VuTeCo carries out two tasks: (1) The "Finding" task to determine whether a unit test case is security-related, and (2) the "Matching" task to relate a test case to the vulnerability it witnesses. VuTeCo addresses the Finding task with UniXcoder, achieving an F0.5 score of 0.73 and a precision of 0.83 on a test set of unit tests from Vul4J. The Matching task is addressed using DeepSeek Coder, achieving an F0.5 score of 0.65 and a precision of 0.75 on a test set of pairs of unit tests and vulnerabilities from Vul4J. VuTeCo has been used in the wild on 427 Java projects and 1,238 vulnerabilities, obtaining 224 test cases confirmed to be security-related and 35 tests correctly matched to 29 vulnerabilities. The validated tests were collected in a new dataset called Test4Vul. VuTeCo lays the foundation for large-scale retrieval of vulnerability-witnessing tests, enabling future AI models to better understand and generate security unit tests.

Large language models (LLMs) have evolved into autonomous agents that rely on open skill ecosystems (e.g., ClawHub and Skills.Rest), hosting numerous publicly reusable skills. Existing security research on these ecosystems mainly focuses on vulnerabilities within skills, such as prompt injection. However, there is a critical gap regarding skills that may be misused for harmful actions (e.g., cyber attacks, fraud and scams, privacy violations, and sexual content generation), namely harmful skills. In this paper, we present the first large-scale measurement study of harmful skills in agent ecosystems, covering 98,440 skills across two major registries. Using an LLM-driven scoring system grounded in our harmful skill taxonomy, we find that 4.93% of skills (4,858) are harmful, with ClawHub exhibiting an 8.84% harmful rate compared to 3.49% on Skills.Rest. We then construct HarmfulSkillBench, the first benchmark for evaluating agent safety against harmful skills in realistic agent contexts, comprising 200 harmful skills across 20 categories and four evaluation conditions. By evaluating six LLMs on HarmfulSkillBench, we find that presenting a harmful task through a pre-installed skill substantially lowers refusal rates across all models, with the average harm score rising from 0.27 without the skill to 0.47 with it, and further to 0.76 when the harmful intent is implicit rather than stated as an explicit user request. We responsibly disclose our findings to the affected registries and release our benchmark to support future research (see https://github.com/TrustAIRLab/HarmfulSkillBench).

Agent skills occupy a privileged position in the agent workflow, as agents are expected to implicitly follow and execute them, rendering third-party skills a vulnerable attack surface. Existing studies have revealed unsafe agent behaviors induced by skill-based attacks, but they primarily evaluate poisoned skills within a single task execution and enumerate harms through ad-hoc risk lists. To bridge these gaps, we introduce SkillHarm, a benchmark of skill-based attacks across the skill-use lifecycle, paired with a systematic taxonomy of skill-relevant risks. SkillHarm evaluates two attack scenarios: Fixed-Payload Poisoning (FPP), where a fixed poisoned skill package directly compromises any task session that invokes it, and Self-Mutating Poisoning (SMP), where an initially benign execution silently mutates persistent skill content, deferring harm until a subsequent reuse. It further defines 12 risk types based on the agent workflow component targeted by the harm: data pipelines, system environments, and agent autonomy. To instantiate these attacks at scale, we build AutoSkillHarm, an automated construction pipeline with coding agents driven by natural-language harnesses. The resulting benchmark contains 879 attack samples across 71 skills. Experiments show that current agents remain vulnerable with attack success rates up to 86.3% in FPP and 69.3% in SMP. Our analysis further reveals a latent risk: many apparent attack failures stem from the agent failing to engage with the poisoned file rather than genuine resistance, and current defenses still fail to reliably mitigate the threat.

Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have led to increasingly sophisticated safety protocols and features designed to prevent harmful, unethical, or unauthorized outputs. However, these guardrails remain susceptible to novel and creative forms of adversarial prompting, including manually generated test cases. In this work, we present two new test cases in mental health for (i) suicide and (ii) self-harm, using multi-step, prompt-level jailbreaking and bypass built-in content and safety filters. We show that user intent is disregarded, leading to the generation of detailed harmful content and instructions that could cause real-world harm. We conduct an empirical evaluation across six widely available LLMs, demonstrating the generalizability and reliability of the bypass. We assess these findings and the multilayered ethical tensions that they present for their implications on prompt-response filtering and context- and task-specific model development. We recommend a more comprehensive and systematic approach to AI safety and ethics while emphasizing the need for continuous adversarial testing in safety-critical AI deployments. We also argue that while certain clearly defined safety measures and guardrails can and must be implemented in LLMs, ensuring robust and comprehensive safety across all use cases and domains remains extremely challenging given the current technical maturity of general-purpose LLMs.

Tool-using language model agents are usually evaluated by whether they finish the user's task. That metric misses a common failure: an agent can complete the requested work while also taking an unauthorized side-effecting action, such as writing to the wrong object, expanding the scope of the request, or contacting an unintended recipient. We call this failure mode collateral damage (CD). We introduce SABench (Side-effect-Aware Benchmark), a benchmark of 201 email, calendar, and ticket tasks. Each task crosses one of four state structures (independent, dependent, externally reachable, cross-tool) with one of four trap families (ambiguity, mis-targeting, cascade harm, overreach), and each task has a deterministic trace-based oracle for both goal satisfaction and authorization compliance. Across 2,211 model-task pairs from 11 frontier LLMs spanning major commercial and open model families, 15.2% of all runs incur CD, with risk concentrated in ambiguity tasks (38.8% violation rate) while non-ambiguous traps average 8.4% CD. Among goal-satisfied runs, 12.8% still produce unauthorized writes. Cross-tool and dependent states have about twice the CD rate of independent states. CD rates vary by 4.7x across models at comparable goal rates, which suggests that task success alone is a poor proxy for safe tool use. The SABench task corpus is released at https://huggingface.co/datasets/Phaedrus/sabench; the traces, oracle, code, and analysis pipeline are released at https://github.com/hjj194/sabench-artifact.

Exploratory GUI testing is essential for software quality but suffers from high manual costs. While Multi-modal Large Language Model (MLLM) agents excel in navigation, they fail to autonomously discover defects due to two core challenges: Goal-Oriented Masking, where agents prioritize task completion over reporting anomalies, and Execution-Bias Attribution, where system defects are misidentified as agent errors. To address these, we first introduce GUITestBench, the first interactive benchmark for this task, featuring 143 tasks across 26 defects. We then propose GUITester, a multi-agent framework that decouples navigation from verification via two modules: (i) a Planning-Execution Module (PEM) that proactively probes for defects via embedded testing intents, and (ii) a Hierarchical Reflection Module (HRM) that resolves attribution ambiguity through interaction history analysis. GUITester achieves an F1-score of 48.90\% (Pass@3) on GUITestBench, outperforming state-of-the-art baselines (33.35\%). Our work demonstrates the feasibility of autonomous exploratory testing and provides a robust foundation for future GUI quality assurance~Our code is now available in~\href{https://github.com/ADaM-BJTU/GUITestBench{https://github.com/ADaM-BJTU/GUITestBench}}.

An LLM safety patch can pass a benchmark while still being a poor repair. This risk is especially acute for jailbreak repairs, where the goal is to correct a specific unsafe behaviour without changing unrelated behaviours. A patch may block exact evaluation prompts yet fail on close harmful variants, or suppress harmful behaviour by over-refusing benign prompts that share its wording or structure. Existing protocols primarily test whether models can be broken, while aggregate metrics (attack success, refusal rates, global capability) cannot distinguish selective repairs from broader local suppression. To address this gap, we introduce PatchBench, a benchmark of empirically observed model-specific jailbreak failures inducing actionable harmful answers. Starting from 27,870 prompts from 37 public datasets, we curate 15,314 English prompts and query 8 open-source instruction-tuned models. Combining WildGuard filtering, pairwise Elo ranking, and manual verification, we retain a curated bank of 400 high-confidence jailbreak failures. We further introduce PatchBench-Local, an evaluation protocol testing whether a patch is behaviourally precise. For each harmful source prompt, PatchBench-Local generates three families of local neighbours: harmful variants preserving malicious intent, benign prompts with matched structure, and benign prompts reusing key harmful terms. It evaluates harmful-neighbour correction and benign-neighbour preservation, distinguishing selective repair from broader local suppression. Evaluating four activation steering methods with PatchBench-Local and MMLU shows that global capability can remain nearly unchanged while local benign regressions are severe, confirming aggregate metrics miss important collateral damage. PatchBench-Local provides a more precise basis for developing and comparing jailbreak repair methods.

While the deployment of large language models (LLMs) in high-value industries continues to expand, the systematic assessment of their safety against jailbreak and prompt-based attacks remains insufficient. Existing safety evaluation benchmarks and frameworks are often limited by an imbalanced integration of core components (attack, defense, and evaluation methods) and an isolation between flexible evaluation frameworks and standardized benchmarking capabilities. These limitations hinder reliable cross-study comparisons and create unnecessary overhead for comprehensive risk assessment. To address these gaps, we present TeleAI-Safety, a modular and reproducible framework coupled with a systematic benchmark for rigorous LLM safety evaluation. Our framework integrates a broad collection of 19 attack methods (including one self-developed method), 29 defense methods, and 19 evaluation methods (including one self-developed method). With a curated attack corpus of 342 samples spanning 12 distinct risk categories, the TeleAI-Safety benchmark conducts extensive evaluations across 14 target models. The results reveal systematic vulnerabilities and model-specific failure cases, highlighting critical trade-offs between safety and utility, and identifying potential defense patterns for future optimization. In practical scenarios, TeleAI-Safety can be flexibly adjusted with customized attack, defense, and evaluation combinations to meet specific demands. We release our complete code and evaluation results to facilitate reproducible research and establish unified safety baselines.

Agent benchmarks increasingly evaluate repository editing, web research, terminal use, and long-horizon interaction. Their scores support capability claims only when the evaluation protocol keeps the intended capability necessary for success. Recent reward-hacking benchmarks and system reports show that agents can instead recover public solutions, read evaluation artifacts, infer generator structure, manipulate feedback, or benefit from invalid scoring paths; existing responses do not provide a common procedure for attributing these shortcuts and quantifying their effect across benchmarks. We formulate protocol validity and introduce HackDetect, a post-hoc audit that identifies an exposure, determines how the agent used it, and assesses whether the resulting score is misleading. We quantify score inflation with the Mislead gap, defined as the exploit score minus the intended score. We audit 2,385 traces across 15 agent benchmarks and find evidence of exposures and reward hacking in 67.0% of Frontier Science traces and 66.7% of AutoLab tasks. Across paired comparisons, we measure score inflation of 0.45-1.00, showing that benchmark reports should provide evidence that scores reflect the intended capability.

Aligning large language models (LLMs) with human values, particularly in the face of stealthy and complex jailbreaks, presents a formidable challenge. In this study, we present a simple yet highly effective defense strategy, i.e., Intention Analysis Prompting (IAPrompt). The principle behind is to trigger LLMs' inherent self-correct and improve ability through a two-stage process: 1) essential intention analysis, and 2) policy-aligned response. Notably, IAPrompt is an inference-only method, thus could enhance the safety of LLMs without compromising their helpfulness. Extensive experiments on SAP200 and DAN benchmarks across Vicuna, ChatGLM, MPT, DeepSeek, and GPT-3.5 show that IAPrompt could consistently and significantly reduce the harmfulness in response (averagely -46.5% attack success rate) and maintain the general helpfulness. Further analyses present some insights into how our method works. To facilitate reproducibility, We release our code and scripts at: https://github.com/alphadl/SafeLLM_with_IntentionAnalysis

As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed for systems programming, their ability to generate secure C++ code, where a single memory-safety failure creates an exploitable vulnerability, remains a critical concern. Yet most security evaluations of AI-generated code rely on static analysis alone, which flags warnings without confirming run- time violations or reasoning about untested paths. This study investigates whether AI-generated C++ is measurably less safe than human-written code, and whether common verification tools agree on the risk. We introduce VULBENCH-CPP, a benchmark of 8,918 C++ programs from three open-weight LLMs (Gemma 3 27B IT, LLaMA 3.3 70B Instruct, Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B Instruct) and human authors across 851 competitive-programming tasks. Each program is annotated by four verification tiers: functional testing, static analysis (cppcheck, clang-tidy), dynamic analysis (ASan/UBSan), and bounded model checking (ESBMC). Account- ing for the correlation among solutions to a shared task, we find that AI-generated code is roughly twice as likely as human code to trigger a confirmed runtime violation, even after controlling for code length and test pass-rate. Under static analysis the two look equally safe, but this is misleading: the apparent similarity reflects code length rather than real safety, and the tiers detect largely different classes of violation, demonstrating that no single tier is sufficient. These vulnerability patterns remain consistent across independent generations. We release the benchmark, harness, and annotated results.

The widespread integration of Large Language Models (LLMs) necessitates rigorous and systematic safety evaluation. Existing paradigms either rely on constructed benchmarks to assess safety from predefined perspectives, or employ dynamic red-teaming to probe potential vulnerabilities. While effective, these approaches face challenges, as they depend heavily on expert domain knowledge, offer limited systematic guarantees, and are vulnerable to rapid obsolescence. To address these limitations, we introduce a novel framework POLARIS that brings the rigor of specification-based software testing to AI safety. POLARIS first compiles unstructured natural-language policies into First-Order Logic (FOL) representations, establishing a traceable link between high-level rules and concrete test cases. This formalization enables the construction of a Semantic Policy Graph, where complex policy violation scenarios are encoded as traversable paths. By systematically exploring this graph, POLARIS uncovers compositional violation patterns, which are then instantiated into executable natural-language test queries, enabling coverage-driven and reproducible safety testing. Experiments demonstrate that POLARIS achieves higher policy coverage and attack success counts compared to established baselines. Crucially, by bridging formal methods and AI safety, POLARIS provides a principled, automated approach to ensuring LLMs adhere to safety-critical policies with verifiable traceability. We release our code at https://github.com/huac-lxy/POLARIS.

Since autonomous coding agents generate complex behaviors at high-volume, we may want to use other LLMs to monitor actions to reduce the risk from dangerous misaligned behavior. To better understand the limitations of such monitors against the diverse attack strategies that a coding agent could use, we present SLEIGHT-Bench (Subtle Low-itEration Insight-Guided Harmful Transcripts), a benchmark of synthetic transcripts containing 40 attacks across 11 categories, each showing a coding agent covertly pursuing a harmful objective (e.g. weight exfiltration, credential theft, unmonitored rogue deployment). We find that 20 of 40 attacks are never caught by an Opus 4.6 monitor with extended thinking across 10 trials at a 1% false-positive rate, while the overall catch rate is 32%. We identify several evasion strategies such as exploiting model priors, user instruction ambiguity, and state manipulation, which facilitate creating attacks that evade frontier monitors. We also elicit stronger monitor performance using coding agents as monitors versus regular prompted monitors, and for some evasion strategies show improved catch rates with targeted monitor prompts. Our dataset and evaluation framework are available at https://github.com/safety-research/sleight-bench and https://huggingface.co/datasets/sleightbench/SLEIGHT-Bench.

Coding agents are increasingly capable with autonomy, which exposes them to repository-level poisoning. Existing red-teaming studies remain restricted to manual selection for malicious payload locations and fixed disguise strategies, which cannot represent realistic repository poisoning. We present TrojanForge, the first automated framework for repository poisoning. TrojanForge parses repository structure through abstract syntax trees (AST) and maps agent execution traces onto AST nodes. A security review agent ranks these candidates and selects the least conspicuous ones for payload mounting. Then, through adversarial play with the target agent, TrojanForge iteratively refines disguise strategies by inverting the causes of agent detection, and transfers accumulated success experience across repositories. We further construct TrojanBench, a benchmark of 384 poisoned repositories spanning 6 domains and 9 programming languages. Extensive experiments show that TrojanForge achieves a stable poisoning success rate of over 60% with backdoor injection exceeding 90%. Comprehensive evaluation on TrojanBench across 4 harnesses and 12 models reveals that even commercial agents fail to defend against repository-level poisoning.

We evaluate the propensity of frontier models to sabotage or refuse to assist with safety research when deployed as AI research agents within a frontier AI company. We apply two complementary evaluations to four Claude models (Mythos Preview, Opus 4.7 Preview, Opus 4.6, and Sonnet 4.6): an unprompted sabotage evaluation testing model behaviour with opportunities to sabotage safety research, and a sabotage continuation evaluation testing whether models continue to sabotage when placed in trajectories where prior actions have started undermining research. We find no instances of unprompted sabotage across any model, with refusal rates close to zero for Mythos Preview and Opus 4.7 Preview, though all models sometimes only partially completed tasks. In the continuation evaluation, Mythos Preview actively continues sabotage in 7% of cases (versus 3% for Opus 4.6, 4% for Sonnet 4.6, and 0% for Opus 4.7 Preview), and exhibits reasoning-output discrepancy in the majority of these cases, indicating covert sabotage reasoning. Our evaluation framework builds on Petri, an open-source LLM auditing tool, with a custom scaffold running models inside Claude Code, alongside an iterative pipeline for generating realistic sabotage trajectories. We measure both evaluation awareness and a new form of situational awareness termed "prefill awareness", the capability to recognise that prior trajectory content was not self-generated. Opus 4.7 Preview shows notably elevated unprompted evaluation awareness, while prefill awareness remains low across all models. Finally, we discuss limitations including evaluation awareness confounds, limited scenario coverage, and untested pathways to risk beyond safety research sabotage.

LLM-based agents are becoming increasingly proficient at solving web-based tasks. With this capability comes a greater risk of misuse for malicious purposes, such as posting misinformation in an online forum or selling illicit substances on a website. To evaluate these risks, we propose SafeArena, the first benchmark to focus on the deliberate misuse of web agents. SafeArena comprises 250 safe and 250 harmful tasks across four websites. We classify the harmful tasks into five harm categories -- misinformation, illegal activity, harassment, cybercrime, and social bias, designed to assess realistic misuses of web agents. We evaluate leading LLM-based web agents, including GPT-4o, Claude-3.5 Sonnet, Qwen-2-VL 72B, and Llama-3.2 90B, on our benchmark. To systematically assess their susceptibility to harmful tasks, we introduce the Agent Risk Assessment framework that categorizes agent behavior across four risk levels. We find agents are surprisingly compliant with malicious requests, with GPT-4o and Qwen-2 completing 34.7% and 27.3% of harmful requests, respectively. Our findings highlight the urgent need for safety alignment procedures for web agents. Our benchmark is available here: https://safearena.github.io

Agentic AI coding editors driven by large language models have recently become more popular due to their ability to improve developer productivity during software development. Modern editors such as Cursor are designed not just for code completion, but also with more system privileges for complex coding tasks (e.g., run commands in the terminal, access development environments, and interact with external systems). While this brings us closer to the "fully automated programming" dream, it also raises new security concerns. In this study, we present the first empirical analysis of prompt injection attacks targeting these high-privilege agentic AI coding editors. We show how attackers can remotely exploit these systems by poisoning external development resources with malicious instructions, effectively hijacking AI agents to run malicious commands, turning "your AI" into "attacker's shell". To perform this analysis, we implement AIShellJack, an automated testing framework for assessing prompt injection vulnerabilities in agentic AI coding editors. AIShellJack contains 314 unique attack payloads that cover 70 techniques from the MITRE ATT&CK framework. Using AIShellJack, we conduct a large-scale evaluation on GitHub Copilot and Cursor, and our evaluation results show that attack success rates can reach as high as 84% for executing malicious commands. Moreover, these attacks are proven effective across a wide range of objectives, ranging from initial access and system discovery to credential theft and data exfiltration.

Control evaluations measure whether monitoring and security protocols for AI systems prevent intentionally subversive AI models from causing harm. Our work presents the first control evaluation performed in an agent environment. We construct BashBench, a dataset of 257 challenging multi-step system administration tasks, and evaluate whether various safety measures can prevent an adversarially constructed AI agent from covertly downloading and executing malicious code in this environment. This multi-step setting introduces new attack and defense dynamics, which we investigate in order to design novel control protocols that prevent safety failures without hindering the ability of non-malicious agents to perform useful work. We introduce a class of control protocols called resample protocols that dynamically take additional samples of certain actions. We find these protocols significantly improve on existing techniques by selectively blocking the AI agent from executing suspicious code and incriminating the agent by generating additional examples of dangerous behavior. We measure the tradeoff between attack prevention and usefulness; our best protocol combines resampling with analysis of previous steps, reducing the success rate of attacks from 58% to 7% at a 5% cost to the performance of a non-malicious agent.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have recently gained attention due to their ability to understand and generate sophisticated human-like content. However, ensuring their safety is paramount as they might provide harmful and unsafe responses. Existing LLM testing frameworks address various safety-related concerns (e.g., drugs, terrorism, animal abuse) but often face challenges due to unbalanced and obsolete datasets. In this paper, we present ASTRAL, a tool that automates the generation and execution of test cases (i.e., prompts) for testing the safety of LLMs. First, we introduce a novel black-box coverage criterion to generate balanced and diverse unsafe test inputs across a diverse set of safety categories as well as linguistic writing characteristics (i.e., different style and persuasive writing techniques). Second, we propose an LLM-based approach that leverages Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG), few-shot prompting strategies and web browsing to generate up-to-date test inputs. Lastly, similar to current LLM test automation techniques, we leverage LLMs as test oracles to distinguish between safe and unsafe test outputs, allowing a fully automated testing approach. We conduct an extensive evaluation on well-known LLMs, revealing the following key findings: i) GPT3.5 outperforms other LLMs when acting as the test oracle, accurately detecting unsafe responses, and even surpassing more recent LLMs (e.g., GPT-4), as well as LLMs that are specifically tailored to detect unsafe LLM outputs (e.g., LlamaGuard); ii) the results confirm that our approach can uncover nearly twice as many unsafe LLM behaviors with the same number of test inputs compared to currently used static datasets; and iii) our black-box coverage criterion combined with web browsing can effectively guide the LLM on generating up-to-date unsafe test inputs, significantly increasing the number of unsafe LLM behaviors.

Agents need reliable ways to validate their outputs, both when completing tasks and when filtering synthetic training data. We study verifier generation: from the instruction and environment available for solving a task, an agent writes an executable verifier that must accept every valid solution and reject invalid ones. We introduce VerifierBench, a benchmark of 222 tasks from six agent benchmarks spanning tool-call, state-based, and code verification, with 4,993 hidden test cases that include alternative valid solutions and attacks; Verifier4Verifier (V4V), a six-check audit, screens its source verifiers and test suites. Across 19 models in a common agent harness, normalized balanced accuracy ranges from 10.6 to 62.1, with generated verifiers consistently rejecting invalid solutions more reliably than they accept valid ones. This apparent strength can mask overly restrictive verification: most false rejections in the analyzed records come from verifiers that accept no tested solution to a task. Case studies reveal unsupported assumptions about solution formats, tool use, and code changes that exclude valid solutions. These errors survive self-testing because agents test solutions that share the verifier's mistaken assumptions, or submit verifiers without confirming that any correct solution passes. These findings suggest testing both whether a verifier accepts a correct solution and whether it accepts other solutions permitted by the task. The project page and dataset are publicly available.

Tool-augmented LLM agents raise new security risks: tool executions can introduce runtime-only behaviors, including prompt injection and unintended exposure of external inputs (e.g., environment secrets or local files). While existing scanners often focus on static artifacts, analyzing runtime behavior is challenging because directly executing untrusted tools can itself be dangerous. We present MCP-SandboxScan, a lightweight framework motivated by the Model Context Protocol (MCP) that safely executes untrusted tools inside a WebAssembly/WASI sandbox and produces auditable reports of external-to-sink exposures. Our prototype (i) extracts LLM-relevant sinks from runtime outputs (prompt/messages and structured tool-return fields), (ii) instantiates external-input candidates from environment values, mounted file contents, and output-surfaced HTTP fetch intents, and (iii) links sources to sinks via snippet-based substring matching. Case studies on three representative tools show that MCP-SandboxScan can surface provenance evidence when external inputs appear in prompt/messages or tool-return payloads, and can expose filesystem capability violations as runtime evidence. We further compare against a lightweight static string-signature baseline and use a micro-benchmark to characterize false negatives under transformations and false positives from short-token collisions.

There has been an increasing interest in the alignment of large language models (LLMs) with human values. However, the safety issues of their integration with a vision module, or vision language models (VLMs), remain relatively underexplored. In this paper, we propose a novel jailbreaking attack against VLMs, aiming to bypass their safety barrier when a user inputs harmful instructions. A scenario where our poisoned (image, text) data pairs are included in the training data is assumed. By replacing the original textual captions with malicious jailbreak prompts, our method can perform jailbreak attacks with the poisoned images. Moreover, we analyze the effect of poison ratios and positions of trainable parameters on our attack's success rate. For evaluation, we design two metrics to quantify the success rate and the stealthiness of our attack. Together with a list of curated harmful instructions, a benchmark for measuring attack efficacy is provided. We demonstrate the efficacy of our attack by comparing it with baseline methods.

Agent skills extend LLM agents with reusable procedures, tools, and domain-specific workflows, but their safety depends on resolving dependencies among interacting instructions. We introduce SkillLogic, a framework for analyzing logical relations in skill files and constructing executable tests from them. Our taxonomy covers eight relation types, including preconditions that gate valid actions, constraints that limit how allowed actions may be performed, and fallbacks that specify recovery behavior after failure. Using SkillLogic, we scan over 5000 public skills and find that 70% contain at least one logical relation. We then construct SLBench, an 86-case executable benchmark from high-confidence, high-impact, and locally testable relations. Evaluating Codex and Claude Code across six LLM backbones shows unsafe rates up to 70%, with violations leading to privacy leaks, unsafe configuration changes, and incomplete cleanup. The human audit attributes failures to both agent capability gaps and low-salience skill text. We further show that SLGuard, a lightweight inference-time scaffold, reduces violations by 63% on targeted cases. Our results establish logical-relation following as a distinct reliability challenge for skill-guided agents.

LLM-based agents for program repair are increasingly built on a "generate-run-revise" paradigm, iteratively executing tests to evaluate and refine patches. This execution-based approach has become standard practice in state-of-the-art systems. However, executions can be time-consuming and expensive, yet their impact on these agents remains underexplored. In this paper, we conduct a two-stage empirical study over execution behavior in LLM-based program repair. To characterize execution behavior at scale, we first analyze 7,745 agent traces from SWE-bench leaderboard submissions. Second, we evaluate 3,000 end-to-end repair attempts across 200 SWE-bench instances and three agents (Claude Code, Codex, and the open-source OpenCode) under four execution paradigms, which allows for a fine-grained comparison of performance and cost. Our analysis reveals three key observations: (1) Code execution is used across all agents and models analyzed, with an average of 8.8 test runs per task. Execution behavior varies substantially across agents and models, with frequency ranging from 2 to 19 per task, and late-stage executions consistently achieve higher success rates than early-stage ones. (2) Execution restrictions have little effect on repair success: on commercial agents with SOTA models the resolve-rate gap between Prohibited and Unrestricted is only 1.25 percentage points and not statistically significant, while Prohibited saves substantial token and wall-clock cost. (3) Execution benefit is concentrated rather than uniform. These patterns suggest that current agents apply execution indiscriminately, paying its cost on instances where it provides little benefit. Execution, therefore, should be treated as a resource with an explicit cost-benefit tradeoff, not a default capability.

Open-source AI libraries are foundational to modern AI systems but pose significant, underexamined risks across security, licensing, maintenance, supply chain integrity, and regulatory compliance. We present LibVulnWatch, a graph-based agentic assessment framework that performs deep, source-grounded evaluations of these libraries. Built on LangGraph, the system coordinates a directed acyclic graph of specialized agents to extract, verify, and quantify risk using evidence from trusted sources such as repositories, documentation, and vulnerability databases. LibVulnWatch generates reproducible, governance-aligned scores across five critical domains, publishing them to a public leaderboard for longitudinal ecosystem monitoring. Applied to 20 widely used libraries, including ML frameworks, LLM inference engines, and agent orchestration tools, our system covers up to 88% of OpenSSF Scorecard checks while uncovering up to 19 additional risks per library. These include critical Remote Code Execution (RCE) vulnerabilities, absent Software Bills of Materials (SBOMs), licensing constraints, undocumented telemetry, and widespread gaps in regulatory documentation and auditability. By translating high-level governance principles into practical, verifiable metrics, LibVulnWatch advances technical AI governance with a scalable, transparent mechanism for continuous supply chain risk assessment and informed library selection.

Production LLM agents such as Claude Code and Codex operate over untrusted content, files, commands, and workspace state, making safety failures directly actionable. Red-teaming must therefore keep pace with evolving models and tools. Existing approaches mainly optimize attack success and preserve artifacts such as benchmarks, payloads, or attack programs, which record where attacks succeed but not the enabling conditions behind unsafe agent behavior. We study automated red-teaming for production LLM agents using one agentic research environment to discover reusable vulnerability knowledge about another. We present AHA, a falsifiable discovery loop that proposes a vulnerability hypothesis, constructs a falsifier, instantiates a valid attack, executes it in a sandboxed harness, reflects on the trajectory, and promotes confirmed findings into a Vulnerability Concept Graph (VCG). Each concept links an attacker-facing surface to an unsafe trajectory through a claim, enabling condition, falsifier, transfer prediction, and supporting evidence. Across Claude Code and Codex on three scenarios covering direct and indirect attacks, the discovered concepts reveal a reusable vulnerability core across models and agents. A frozen VCG requires no further search and outperforms the strongest frozen discovery baseline by 14.2 percentage points under the same single-shot protocol, while transferring across scenarios and attack channels. The resulting VCG provides an auditable artifact for production safety teams to inspect vulnerabilities, validate patches, and accumulate reusable safety knowledge. Our code is available at https://github.com/henrymao2004/Auto-research-red-teaming-in-sleep.

LLM-based coding agents extend their capabilities via third-party agent skills distributed through open marketplaces without mandatory security review. Unlike traditional packages, these skills are executed as operational directives with system-level privileges, so a single malicious skill can compromise the host. Prior work has not examined whether supply-chain attacks can directly hijack an agent's action space, such as file writes, shell commands, and network requests, despite existing safeguards. We introduce Document-Driven Implicit Payload Execution (DDIPE), which embeds malicious logic in code examples and configuration templates within skill documentation. Because agents reuse these examples during normal tasks, the payload executes without explicit prompts. Using an LLM-driven pipeline, we generate 1,070 adversarial skills from 81 seeds across 15 MITRE ATTACK categories. Across four frameworks and five models, DDIPE achieves 11.6% to 33.5% bypass rates, while explicit instruction attacks achieve 0% under strong defenses. Static analysis detects most cases, but 2.5% evade both detection and alignment. Responsible disclosure led to four confirmed vulnerabilities and two fixes.

Tool-using automation systems, from scripts and CI bots to agentic assistants, fail in recurring patterns. Common failures include unsafe side effects, invalid arguments, uncontrolled retries, and leakage of sensitive outputs. Many mitigations are model-centric and prompt-dependent, so they are brittle and do not generalize to non-LLM callers. We present Policy-First Tooling, a model-agnostic permission layer that mediates tool invocation through explicit constraints, risk-aware gating, recovery controls, and auditable explanations. The paper contributes a compact policy DSL, a runtime enforcement architecture with actionable rationale and fix hints, and a reproducible benchmark based on trace replay with controlled fault and misuse injection. In 225 controlled runs across five policy packs and three fault profiles, stricter packs improve violation prevention from 0.000 in P0 to 0.681 in P4, while task success drops from 0.356 to 0.067. Retry amplification decreases from 3.774 in P0 to 1.378 in P4, and leakage recall reaches 0.875 under injected secret outputs. These results make safety to utility trade-offs explicit and measurable.

Large language models (LLMs) now reach expert-level scores on medical licensing exams, encouraging the assumption that high scores imply safe medical judgment while patients increasingly use them for health advice. We show this assumption is fragile: when misleading context is injected into questions that LLMs originally answer correctly, they abandon the correct answer. We call the ability to maintain correct judgment under adversarial context epistemic resilience, and introduce MedMisBench to measure it. MedMisBench contains 10,932 medical question items and 48,889 misleading context-option pairs spanning medical reasoning, agentic capability, and patient-journey evaluation. Across 11 model configurations, mean accuracy falls from 71.1% on original questions to 38.0% under focused misleading context, with 51.5% attack success. The most damaging injections are formal, rule-like fabrications: authority-framed falsehoods reach 69.5% attack success and exception-poisoning claims reach 64.1%. A 14-member clinical panel from 7 countries identified serious potential harm in 38.2% of reviewed cases. MedMisBench exposes a structural blind spot in LLM evaluation in medical settings: existing benchmarks measure what models know, but not whether they preserve correct medical judgment under misleading context.

Agent skills provide a lightweight mechanism for extending general-purpose agents, but their open format exposes them to skill-poisoning attacks. A practically dangerous injection must stay invisible: if executing the payload derails the user's legitimate task, the resulting failure signal invites inspection of the skill. We therefore evaluate attacks by Attack Success Rate, which requires the injected payload to execute and the user's task to still pass its verifier in the same trial. Prior skill-poisoning attacks face a reliability-stealth trade-off under this lens: YAML-header injections are reliably loaded but easily inspected, whereas stealthier body injections that place explicit malicious commands in the skill prose are less reliable because out-of-context commands invite the agent's own suspicion. We introduce POISE, a position-aware attack that compresses the trigger into a single, benign-looking body instruction, placing it at a feasible position and using a context-aware generator to blend it with nearby setup or prerequisite steps. On Skill-Inject with codex+gpt-5.2, POISE achieves an 89.3% ASR, 28.0 points above a random-placement body baseline and 2.6 points above a YAML-only baseline, while retaining the stealth advantage of body placement. That stealth is the decisive margin: because legitimate skill bodies naturally require privileged tool operations, LLM scanners are hyper-sensitive, falsely flagging 74.6% of clean skills on average across four judges and both benchmarks. Blending into these false alarms, POISE causes only 5.6% of poisoned variants to gain a new high-risk alert over their clean baselines, rendering current static defenses ineffective.

Agent Skills package procedural instructions and checks for use by general-purpose agents, but loading a skill does not guarantee that every requirement remains active throughout a long tool-using trajectory. We study this problem in a production-derived, white-box code-audit workflow. Holding the task and 24 artifact checks fixed, we vary the surrounding context and classify where failures first become visible: lost requirements, editing drift, failed checking, or non-agent evaluator/runtime failures. Codex with gpt-5.4-mini passes 8/10 runs in a 10,991-character clean context but only 3/10 in both a 299,140-character relevant context and an equal-length irrelevant context. This 50-percentage-point difference is large but remains trend-level under two-sided Fisher tests (p = 0.0698). Requirement coverage nevertheless stays above 92% in both long conditions, showing that a few omissions can invalidate an otherwise complete artifact. A second task passes all clean and long runs, so the evidence does not support a universal context-length threshold. A detailed external checklist passes 10/10 runs, compared with 5/10 for a generic self-check (p = 0.0325). Coding-agent scaffolds may help by selecting a smaller working set, but they do not eliminate failures. We do not introduce context rot or a new general monitoring method; we provide a bounded failure classification and empirical case study for white-box code auditing.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have become an integral part of our daily lives. However, they impose certain risks, including those that can harm individuals' privacy, perpetuate biases and spread misinformation. These risks highlight the need for robust safety mechanisms, ethical guidelines, and thorough testing to ensure their responsible deployment. Safety of LLMs is a key property that needs to be thoroughly tested prior the model to be deployed and accessible to the general users. This paper reports the external safety testing experience conducted by researchers from Mondragon University and University of Seville on OpenAI's new o3-mini LLM as part of OpenAI's early access for safety testing program. In particular, we apply our tool, ASTRAL, to automatically and systematically generate up to date unsafe test inputs (i.e., prompts) that helps us test and assess different safety categories of LLMs. We automatically generate and execute a total of 10,080 unsafe test input on a early o3-mini beta version. After manually verifying the test cases classified as unsafe by ASTRAL, we identify a total of 87 actual instances of unsafe LLM behavior. We highlight key insights and findings uncovered during the pre-deployment external testing phase of OpenAI's latest LLM.

LLMs are increasingly applied to cybersecurity workflows, where they are expected to translate analysts' intent into tool invocations. However, existing evaluations focus on knowledge-based assessments or end-to-end agentic tasks, and do not directly measure LLMs' ability to generate executable commands for real-world cybersecurity tools. This gap is critical because cybersecurity operations rely on strict command-line interfaces (CLIs), where minor syntax errors, incorrect flag--value bindings, or argument misordering can invalidate execution. We introduce KaliBench, a fine-grained benchmark and dataset for natural-language--to--CLI translation on Kali Linux, comprising 8,504 query--command pairs spanning 1,642 tools across 23 capability dimensions and 5 security phases. KaliBench is constructed via a manuscript-grounded pipeline with deterministic canonicalization and alias-aware evaluation, enabling precise and reproducible assessment of tool selection and argument construction. To ensure both semantic correctness and practical executability, we develop a multi-stage verification pipeline that combines LLM-based validation, sandboxed terminal execution, and human-in-the-loop refinement. Building on these fine-grained, deterministic signals, KaliBench further enables runtime-free verifiable rewards for training. Across three evaluation modes and 24 configurations of general-purpose and security-focused open-weight models, no open-weight model exceeds 42% exact-command accuracy in the unrestricted setting, highlighting the difficulty of accurate CLI-based cybersecurity tool use without explicit tool hints. We further show that supervised fine-tuning and reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards derived from KaliBench significantly improve an 8B model and achieve performance comparable to a 685B MoE model.

There is an increasing amount of research and commercial tools for automated test case generation using Large Language Models (LLMs). This paper critically examines whether recent LLM-based test generation tools, such as Codium CoverAgent and CoverUp, can effectively find bugs or unintentionally validate faulty code. Considering bugs are only exposed by failing test cases, we explore the question: can these tools truly achieve the intended objectives of software testing when their test oracles are designed to pass? Using real human-written buggy code as input, we evaluate these tools, showing how LLM-generated tests can fail to detect bugs and, more alarmingly, how their design can worsen the situation by validating bugs in the generated test suite and rejecting bug-revealing tests. These findings raise important questions about the validity of the design behind LLM-based test generation tools and their impact on software quality and test suite reliability.

Cowork agents may complete benign tasks while disclosing protected data, manipulating unauthorized state, invocate unauthorized API. We define behavioral safety and introduce ActBench, a self-evolving benchmark that evaluates such behavior risk from execution trajectories rather than final responses. Each case pairs a benign task with an adversarial variant that preserves its instruction, configuration, initial state, rating model, and trusted records while injecting a task-reachable payload. ActBench contains 600 cases from 213 scenarios, spanning 15 risk behaviors, six execution spaces, and 48 web-service APIs.To move beyond static payloads, we propose a reward-guided beam search method that jointly optimizes attack effectiveness and task utility, while reflection diagnoses failed execution checkpoint and guides payload revision. Besides, we propose a dual evidence verification mechanism that verifies agent execution safety and utility through log evidence and LLM-based trajectory evidence.We evaluate 15 LLMs and 6 open-source cowork agents over 24,000 trajectories. Under a fixed harness, attack success rates ranges from 10.1% to 94.4% across models, while under a fixed base model, they range from 73.7% to 94.4% across agents.These results show greater variation across models than agent harness, while attacks remain highly successful across all tested harnesses.Our benchmark is released at: https://github.com/zjuicsr/ActBench.

Computer-use agents extend language models from text generation to persistent action over tools, files, and execution environments. Unlike chat systems, they maintain state across interactions and translate intermediate outputs into concrete actions. This creates a distinct safety challenge in that harmful behavior may emerge through sequences of individually plausible steps, including intermediate actions that appear locally acceptable but collectively lead to unauthorized actions. We present AgentHazard, a benchmark for evaluating harmful behavior in computer-use agents. AgentHazard contains 2,653 instances spanning diverse risk categories and attack strategies. Each instance pairs a harmful objective with a sequence of operational steps that are locally legitimate but jointly induce unsafe behavior. The benchmark evaluates whether agents can recognize and interrupt harm arising from accumulated context, repeated tool use, intermediate actions, and dependencies across steps. We evaluate AgentHazard on Claude Code, OpenClaw, and IFlow using mostly open or openly deployable models from the Qwen3, Kimi, GLM, and DeepSeek families. Our experimental results indicate that current systems remain highly vulnerable. In particular, when powered by Qwen3-Coder, Claude Code exhibits an attack success rate of 73.63\%, suggesting that model alignment alone does not reliably guarantee the safety of autonomous agents.

Red-team evaluations of AI models support some claims and not others, and the boundary between the two is calculable rather than merely a matter of judgment. We define the evidential ceiling of an evaluation as the largest factor by which one result can move belief under a fixed testing budget, derive it in closed form for the benchmark null result, and use it to locate that boundary exactly. We find that above a calculable harm rate, a benchmark of modest size certifies a category to a stated evidentiary standard, and a clean sheet is then the stronger of the two possible observations, outweighing a single reproduced failure. Below that rate, no passive benchmark of feasible size provides the specified evidence of safety under the fixed scoring rule and approximately independent trial structure. The crossing between the two regimes has a closed form. The bound is not specific to benchmarks: written in terms of a procedure's hypothesis conditioned elicitation rates, it covers adaptive and automated red teaming as well, and shows that discrimination between the hypotheses rather than attack success is what determines evidential worth. Auditing eight evaluation suites against the boundary, we find that current benchmarks are adequate for high-frequency harm categories and several orders of magnitude short for rare, catastrophic ones. Safety benchmarks are not uninformative. They are informative about a specific and computable set of propositions, and the discipline they need is to state which.

AI coding agents such as Claude Code and Gemini CLI increasingly extend themselves with third-party skills: markdown packages bundling natural-language instructions, executable scripts, and tool permissions. Because a skill is at once code and agent-facing instruction, it introduces a supply chain dependency whose risk is neither pure code nor pure prompt. Detection tools have never been measured against verified ground truth spanning this hybrid space, leaving their effectiveness unknown and wild-only evaluations biased. We present MalSkillBench, the first runtime-verified benchmark of malicious agent skills: 3,944 malicious skills labeled along a three-dimensional taxonomy of 108 cells. Of these, 3,214 come from a closed-loop Generate-Verify-Feedback pipeline admitting only samples whose malicious behavior fires inside a Docker sandbox under system-call monitoring and an LLM judge; we add 703 in-the-wild and 4,000 matched benign skills. Our measurements are consistent: code injection reaches 94.5% verification yield but prompt injection only 75.8%, the same fragility that later makes it hard to detect; the wild sample is narrow, dominated by one cryptocurrency-theft campaign (86.6% one behavior, 81% from two accounts) with a small but architecturally new tail attacking the agent control plane; the strongest skill-specific detector reaches 98.4% recall on code injection yet collapses on prompt-injection and agent-control attacks, and wild-only scoring swings the ranking by up to 66 recall points; supply-chain scanners and prompt-injection defenses each see only half of a skill, and no combination recovers the code-instruction relationship. Detecting malicious skills therefore requires reasoning jointly over task intent, code, and instructions. We release the dataset, pipeline, baselines, and results.

Rapid evolution of Large Language Models (LLMs) has achieved major advances in reasoning, planning, and function-calling capabilities. Multi-agentic collaborative frameworks using such LLMs place them at the center of solving software development-related tasks such as code generation. However, direct use of LLM generated code in production software development systems is problematic. The code could be unstable or erroneous and contain vulnerabilities such as data poisoning, malicious attacks, and hallucinations that could lead to widespread system malfunctions. This prohibits the adoption of LLM generated code in production AI systems where human code reviews and traditional secure testing tools are impractical or untrustworthy. In this paper, we discuss safety and reliability problems with the execution of LLM generated code and propose a Secure Transpiler and Executor of LLM-Generated Program (STELP), capable of executing LLM-generated code in a controlled and safe manner. STELP secures autonomous production AI systems involving code generation, filling the critical void left by the impracticality or limitations of traditional secure testing methodologies and human oversight. This includes applications such as headless code generation-execution and LLMs that produce executable code snippets as an action plan to be executed in real time. We contribute a human-validated dataset of insecure code snippets and benchmark our approach on publicly available datasets for correctness, safety, and latency. Our results demonstrate that our approach outperforms an existing method by a significant margin, particularly in its ability to safely execute risky code snippets. Warning: This paper contains malicious code snippets that should be run with caution.

Recent work has embodied LLMs as agents, allowing them to access tools, perform actions, and interact with external content (e.g., emails or websites). However, external content introduces the risk of indirect prompt injection (IPI) attacks, where malicious instructions are embedded within the content processed by LLMs, aiming to manipulate these agents into executing detrimental actions against users. Given the potentially severe consequences of such attacks, establishing benchmarks to assess and mitigate these risks is imperative. In this work, we introduce InjecAgent, a benchmark designed to assess the vulnerability of tool-integrated LLM agents to IPI attacks. InjecAgent comprises 1,054 test cases covering 17 different user tools and 62 attacker tools. We categorize attack intentions into two primary types: direct harm to users and exfiltration of private data. We evaluate 30 different LLM agents and show that agents are vulnerable to IPI attacks, with ReAct-prompted GPT-4 vulnerable to attacks 24% of the time. Further investigation into an enhanced setting, where the attacker instructions are reinforced with a hacking prompt, shows additional increases in success rates, nearly doubling the attack success rate on the ReAct-prompted GPT-4. Our findings raise questions about the widespread deployment of LLM Agents. Our benchmark is available at https://github.com/uiuc-kang-lab/InjecAgent.

When a professional web developer's code fails a test, they do not simply re-read the stack trace. They open the application in a browser, click buttons, inspect computed styles, and run diagnostic commands to understand what went wrong. Existing feedback mechanisms for coding agents rely on screenshots, LLM-as-a-judge scoring, or natural-language corrections, but few interact with the live application the way a developer would. We introduce WatchPoint, a simulated-user system that mimics real developer behavior by generating and executing diagnostic scripts against the running application, producing structured observations that guide the coding model's retry. Unlike prior approaches that target single-file edits or evaluate using non-executable metrics, we operate on Web-Bench, a benchmark of 50 multi-file web projects comprising 1,000 sequentially dependent tasks, verified by deterministic end-to-end tests. WatchPoint recovers 57.6% of the tasks it diagnoses, and a controlled user study confirms the simulation's realism: human testers achieve a comparable recovery rate (54.5%), providing evidence that automated diagnostic scripts can substitute for interactive human testing on sequential web development tasks. We further identify a pattern of capability gaps that governs when simulated-user feedback is helpful and when it should be withheld.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have become critical to modern software development, but their reliance on uncurated web-scale datasets for training introduces a significant security risk: the absorption and reproduction of malicious content. To systematically evaluate this risk, we introduce Scam2Prompt, a scalable automated auditing framework that identifies the underlying intent of a scam site and then synthesizes innocuous, developer-style prompts that mirror this intent, allowing us to test whether an LLM will generate malicious code in response to these innocuous prompts. In a large-scale study of four production LLMs (GPT-4o, GPT-4o-mini, Llama-4-Scout, and DeepSeek-V3), we found that Scam2Prompt's innocuous prompts triggered malicious URL generation in 4.24% of cases. To test the persistence of this security risk, we constructed Innoc2Scam-bench, a benchmark of 1,559 innocuous prompts that consistently elicited malicious code from all four initial LLMs. When applied to seven additional production LLMs released in 2025, we found the vulnerability is not only present but severe, with malicious code generation rates ranging from 12.7% to 43.8%. Furthermore, existing safety measures like state-of-the-art guardrails proved insufficient to prevent this behavior, with an overall detection rate of less than 0.3%.

Benchmarks for evaluating large language models on register-transfer-level (RTL) hardware design have proliferated rapidly, yet none reports having applied mutation testing, an established hardware-verification technique for quantifying testbench quality, to ask whether its own testbenches are trustworthy. A testbench that never fails is not evidence of a correct design; it may simply never stimulate the logic that is actually broken. We introduce GateTruth, a mutation-testing engine and methodology for auditing RTL benchmark testbench rigor: inject a deterministic, seeded set of semantic mutants into a reference design and measure what fraction the testbench catches. We validate the methodology against our own 68-task, dual-track reference suite -- 60 specification-to-RTL generation tasks and 8 agentic-repair tasks, scored through a pinned, deterministic synthesis-to-timing flow with correctness enforced as a strict gate -- certifying that 46 of 60 Track A testbenches kill at least 95% of injected mutants under sequential, reproducible execution; we disclose why the other 14 do not, including a Goodhart effect on testbenches revised to pass this gate. We then point the same engine, unmodified, at RTLLM v2.0, a widely adopted external benchmark: of 46 auditable designs, 72% fall below the 95% floor our own suite is held to, and three score 0% outright. A comparable audit of NVIDIA's CVDP benchmark is structurally impossible: its public release withholds reference solutions, removing the golden RTL mutation testing requires. Auditing our own instrument also surfaced a second finding: an initially uniform 4096-token output cap silently truncated three of seven evaluated models, and re-running at 16,384 tokens moved one model from fifth place to first. We argue mutation-kill certification should become a standard reporting requirement for RTL-generation benchmarks generally.

As large language models (LLMs) acquire advanced biological design capabilities, they offer substantial research benefits but simultaneously introduce severe dual-use risks, such as engineering enhanced pathogens or drug-resistant bacteria. While biosecurity frameworks recognize these threats, the actual risk of LLMs executing dangerous biological modifications remains unquantified, particularly when augmented with specialized biological design tools (BDTs). Existing evaluations primarily assess hazardous knowledge possession rather than practical application, overlook risk amplification from BDTs, and rely on unreliable, expensive, or hazardous validation methods. To address these gaps, we introduce DRYLAB-Bench (Design Risk Yielded by LLM Agent in Biodesign), the first comprehensive benchmark evaluating the high-risk biological mutation design capabilities of LLM agents. Moving beyond basic question-answering, DRYLAB-Bench tasks agents with 30 genuinely hazardous mutation-design scenarios distilled from biosecurity guidelines. It evaluates models in a multi-round, tool-augmented environment where LLMs orchestrate BDTs to iteratively refine candidates. Crucially, it scores designs directly against 187,695 empirical wet-lab measurements from ProteinGym and ViroGym using our proposed Biosecurity Risk Score (BRS), quantifying risk-associated effects while enabling scalable and safe ground-truth verification. Evaluations of 15 frontier models reveal substantial baseline threats: without tools, 67.6% of one-shot designs exceed the average measured variant, and 21.4% reach the highest-risk decile. Equipping models with BDTs significantly amplifies this risk, raising the pooled risk by \(ΔBRS=+0.116\) and the top-decile share to 23.5%. Code: https://github.com/drylab-bio/DRYLAB-Bench

AI coding agents are increasingly used to write real-world software, but ensuring that their outputs are correct remains a fundamental challenge. Formal verification offers a promising path: an agent generates code together with a machine-checked proof, guaranteeing that the code satisfies a formal specification. However, there is no guarantee that the formal spec itself matches the user's intent. In this work, we study specification autoformalization: whether LLM agents can translate informal programming problems into faithful formal specifications. We introduce Verus-SpecBench, a benchmark of 581 spec-writing tasks derived from Codeforces problems targeting Verus, a verifier for Rust, and Verus-SpecGym, an agentic environment in which models interact with Verus, bash, & the filesystem to develop these specs. The central challenge is evaluation: expert-written reference specs are expensive to write, & LLM judges can miss subtle mistakes. We address this by (a) extending Verus's exec_spec mechanism so that generated specs can be executed as Rust code, & (b) testing them against official Codeforces tests & adversarial cases extracted from Codeforces "hacks", which are edge cases written by competitors to break incorrect solutions. On Verus-SpecBench, the strongest model, Gemini 3.1 Pro, solves 77.8% of tasks, other frontier models solve 51.1--57.8% & OSS models reach only 21.5--25.5%. Our analysis of failure modes shows that model-generated specs can omit important input assumptions, accept incorrect outputs, & reject valid ones. We also find that LLM-as-a-judge evaluation misses 26% of the failures our evaluator catches. Overall, our results suggest that spec autoformalization is within reach for frontier agents but remains brittle even on problems where they can already generate correct code. The code, data, & logs can be found at https://github.com/formal-verif-is-cool/verus-spec-gym

LLM-based agents are rapidly being adopted across diverse domains. Since they interact with users without supervision, they must be tested extensively. Current testing approaches focus on acceptance-level evaluation from the user's perspective. While intuitive, these tests require manual evaluation, are difficult to automate, do not facilitate root cause analysis, and incur expensive test environments. In this paper, we present methods to enable structural testing of LLM-based agents. Our approach utilizes traces (based on OpenTelemetry) to capture agent trajectories, employs mocking to enforce reproducible LLM behavior, and adds assertions to automate test verification. This enables testing agent components and interactions at a deeper technical level within automated workflows. We demonstrate how structural testing enables the adaptation of software engineering best practices to agents, including the test automation pyramid, regression testing, test-driven development, and multi-language testing. In representative case studies, we demonstrate automated execution and faster root-cause analysis. Collectively, these methods reduce testing costs and improve agent quality through higher coverage, reusability, and earlier defect detection. We provide an open source reference implementation on GitHub.

Large Language Models (LLMs) with safe-alignment training are powerful instruments with robust language comprehension capabilities. These models typically undergo meticulous alignment procedures involving human feedback to ensure the acceptance of safe inputs while rejecting harmful or unsafe ones. However, despite their massive scale and alignment efforts, LLMs remain vulnerable to jailbreak attacks, where malicious users manipulate the model to produce harmful outputs that it was explicitly trained to avoid. In this study, we find that the safety mechanisms in LLMs are predominantly embedded in the middle-to-late layers. Building on this insight, we introduce a novel white-box jailbreak method, SABER (Safety Alignment Bypass via Extra Residuals), which connects two intermediate layers s and e such that s < e, through a residual connection. Our approach achieves a 51% improvement over the best-performing baseline on the HarmBench test set. Furthermore, SABER induces only a marginal shift in perplexity when evaluated on the HarmBench validation set. The source code is publicly available at https://github.com/PalGitts/SABER.

Safety-aligned large language models (LLMs) sometimes falsely refuse pseudo-harmful prompts, like "how to kill a mosquito," which are actually harmless. Frequent false refusals not only frustrate users but also provoke a public backlash against the very values alignment seeks to protect. In this paper, we propose the first method to auto-generate diverse, content-controlled, and model-dependent pseudo-harmful prompts. Using this method, we construct an evaluation dataset called PHTest, which is ten times larger than existing datasets, covers more false refusal patterns, and separately labels controversial prompts. We evaluate 20 LLMs on PHTest, uncovering new insights due to its scale and labeling. Our findings reveal a trade-off between minimizing false refusals and improving safety against jailbreak attacks. Moreover, we show that many jailbreak defenses significantly increase the false refusal rates, thereby undermining usability. Our method and dataset can help developers evaluate and fine-tune safer and more usable LLMs. Our code and dataset are available at https://github.com/umd-huang-lab/FalseRefusal

Jailbreak robustness has become central to large language model (LLM) safety evaluation, yet prevailing methodologies rely primarily on refusal behavior, semantic resemblance, and intent-matching heuristics that emphasize linguistic plausibility rather than correctness. We identify a key limitation in existing evaluations: many jailbreak intents depend on instructional validity rather than epistemic factuality, allowing realistic-looking responses to be labeled successful despite being factually or procedurally incorrect. To address this gap, we propose Sequential Epistemic and Action-Level Validation (SEAV), a verification-centric jailbreak evaluation framework that decomposes responses into ordered steps and evaluates both validity and correctness. SEAV combines LLM-as-a-judge mechanisms for semantic interpretation with retrieval-grounded verification using external knowledge sources, assessing whether generated content is factually correct, structurally consistent, and operationally capable of advancing harmful objectives. Empirically, SEAV cuts the false-positive rate on SD-A (a curated strategic-dishonesty diagnostic) by 14.9\,pp vs. the strongest baseline, and reclassifies 22.1\%--51.0\% of sampled prior-labeled successes as invalid across three of four public benchmarks. Together, these results show that enforcing correctness substantially reshapes measured robustness: many previously labeled jailbreak successes are reclassified as invalid, and results are stable across the tested search backends and evaluator models. Code and data are available at https://github.com/Ardor-Wu/SEAV.

We present ExCyTIn-Bench, the first benchmark to Evaluate an LLM agent x on the task of Cyber Threat Investigation through security questions derived from investigation graphs. Real-world security analysts must sift through a large number of heterogeneous alert signals and security logs, follow multi-hop chains of evidence, and compile an incident report. With the developments of LLMs, building LLM-based agents for automatic thread investigation is a promising direction. To assist the development and evaluation of LLM agents, we construct a dataset from a controlled Azure tenant that covers 8 simulated real-world multi-step attacks, 57 log tables from Microsoft Sentinel and related services, and 589 automatically generated questions. We leverage security logs extracted with expert-crafted detection logic to build threat investigation graphs, and then generate questions with LLMs using paired nodes on the graph, taking the start node as background context and the end node as answer. Anchoring each question to these explicit nodes and edges not only provides automatic, explainable ground truth answers but also makes the pipeline reusable and readily extensible to new logs. This also enables the automatic generation of procedural tasks with verifiable rewards, which can be naturally extended to training agents via reinforcement learning. Our comprehensive experiments with different models confirm the difficulty of the task: with the base setting, the average reward across all evaluated models is 0.249, and the best achieved is 0.368, leaving substantial headroom for future research. Code and data are coming soon!

Recent advances in Language Model (LM) agents and tool use, exemplified by applications like ChatGPT Plugins, enable a rich set of capabilities but also amplify potential risks - such as leaking private data or causing financial losses. Identifying these risks is labor-intensive, necessitating implementing the tools, manually setting up the environment for each test scenario, and finding risky cases. As tools and agents become more complex, the high cost of testing these agents will make it increasingly difficult to find high-stakes, long-tailed risks. To address these challenges, we introduce ToolEmu: a framework that uses an LM to emulate tool execution and enables the testing of LM agents against a diverse range of tools and scenarios, without manual instantiation. Alongside the emulator, we develop an LM-based automatic safety evaluator that examines agent failures and quantifies associated risks. We test both the tool emulator and evaluator through human evaluation and find that 68.8% of failures identified with ToolEmu would be valid real-world agent failures. Using our curated initial benchmark consisting of 36 high-stakes tools and 144 test cases, we provide a quantitative risk analysis of current LM agents and identify numerous failures with potentially severe outcomes. Notably, even the safest LM agent exhibits such failures 23.9% of the time according to our evaluator, underscoring the need to develop safer LM agents for real-world deployment.

Failures in multi-turn reasoning models are largely invisible to terminal-score evaluation. A model can lock onto an unsafe stance early in a long dialogue, yet its final-turn refusal rate may appear indistinguishable from a robustly aligned baseline. To expose these hidden temporal dynamics, we propose a trace-level diagnostic - the CoT-Output 2x2 safety matrix. This framework labels every turn along two independent axes (internal reasoning and visible output), yielding four operationally defined failure cells: robust alignment, alignment faking, overt jailbreak, and a distinct failure mode we term context-injection failure (where the CoT maintains safe reasoning, but the visible output produces harm, highlighting a multi-turn manifestation of reasoning unfaithfulness). We evaluate three distilled reasoning targets against a fixed attacker across five oversight conditions, collecting 6750 turn-level observations on the Information-Hazard scenario. Our analysis reveals two reproducible vulnerabilities: an oversight paradox where explicit monitoring cues paradoxically increase alignment-faking rates rather than suppress them, and a context-injection failure where models lock onto unsafe external outputs despite safe internal states. We release the full dataset of multi-turn dialogues and CoT traces to support follow-up trace-diagnostic research.

Toxic interactions during code reviews can undermine teamwork and hinder productivity in software engineering (SE) teams. While prior studies explore toxicity detection and empirical investigation, they lack real-time detoxification tools to support the SE community. To address this gap, we present ToxiShield, a browser extension for GitHub pull requests that is built using three modules: i) Toxicity Filter -- to identify whether a text is toxic, ii) Communication coach -- to facilitate just-in-time fine-grained toxicity categorization with explanations, and iii) The Reframer -- that generates a revised, constructive alternative of a toxic text. For each module, we trained and evaluated multiple deep learning and Large Language Models (LLMs) to identify the best choice. A BERT-based binary detection model, trained on 38,761 code review samples, achieves 98% accuracy and an F1-score of 97% and is the selected one for the Toxicity Filter module. For the Communication Coach, prompt-tuned Claude 3.5 Sonnet achieved the best performance with 39% MCC and 42% F1 in multiclass toxicity classification with detailed reasoning. For Reframer, we evaluated five LLMs using a fine-tuning strategy on a dataset of 10,120 code review comments. The fine-tuned Llama 3.2 model achieves 95.27% style transfer accuracy, 97.03% fluency, 67.07% content preservation, and an 84% J-score. We further validated ToxiShield through a human evaluation using the Technology Acceptance Model with 10 participants, confirming its perceived usefulness and ease of adoption. ToxiShield sets a benchmark for advancing constructive communication in software engineering, driving inclusivity and healthier collaboration in open-source communities.

In this paper we present a novel solution that combines the capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) with Formal Verification strategies to verify and automatically repair software vulnerabilities. Initially, we employ Bounded Model Checking (BMC) to locate the software vulnerability and derive a counterexample. The counterexample provides evidence that the system behaves incorrectly or contains a vulnerability. The counterexample that has been detected, along with the source code, are provided to the LLM engine. Our approach involves establishing a specialized prompt language for conducting code debugging and generation to understand the vulnerability's root cause and repair the code. Finally, we use BMC to verify the corrected version of the code generated by the LLM. As a proof of concept, we create ESBMC-AI based on the Efficient SMT-based Context-Bounded Model Checker (ESBMC) and a pre-trained Transformer model, specifically gpt-3.5-turbo, to detect and fix errors in C programs. Our experimentation involved generating a dataset comprising 1000 C code samples, each consisting of 20 to 50 lines of code. Notably, our proposed method achieved an impressive success rate of up to 80% in repairing vulnerable code encompassing buffer overflow and pointer dereference failures. We assert that this automated approach can effectively incorporate into the software development lifecycle's continuous integration and deployment (CI/CD) process.

Language-model agents increasingly use tools to act on external systems. Earlier actions can alter files, permissions, database records, or other state, making a later routine-looking action harmful. Yet the visible interaction may not reveal the underlying state needed to assess that action. We formulate attack and defense as partially observed state control in SEAD, deriving their design requirements from this shared execution process. Because attackers supply instructions while the target chooses concrete actions, DART decomposes harmful goals into locally plausible steps and uses feedback from actual tool execution to guide trajectory search. The defender must decide before execution with incomplete state evidence. SAGE can therefore investigate relevant state through read-only queries before allowing or blocking each action, including those proposed after a block. We construct an environment-verifiable dataset integrating controlled initial states, replayable tool environments, and task-specific executable checks. Across four target models, DART improves semantic attack success by 18.8--35.9 percentage points over the competing baseline, with consistent gains under executable verification. On recorded trajectories, SAGE preserves 95.79% of benign trajectories while intercepting 92.73% of harmful paths by the harm-enabling boundary. In online attack-defense evaluation, it reduces DART's executable attack success from 48.0% to 4.0%. SAGE remains effective across four attack methods and generalizes to out-of-domain environments. Our code and data is available at https://github.com/EverywhereSafety/SEAD.

As agent systems become more widely used, multiple agent sessions increasingly run alongside pre-existing user tasks in the same environment, sharing resources with limited capacity or mutually exclusive states. This creates a safety risk: when granted sufficient privileges, an agent may resolve a resource conflict by terminating or otherwise disrupting an existing task rather than reporting it. In this work, we identify and formalize this failure mode, which we term destructive resource preemption: obtaining the resources required for a requested task by terminating, overwriting, evicting, or degrading an incumbent task. To systematically study this risk, we introduce ClashBench, an executable benchmark comprising 268 validated conflict cases across 55 resource types, and evaluate 17 models through Codex, Claude Code, and OpenCode. We observe destructive preemption in 44.5% of trajectories, where the agent completes the requested task while causing the incumbent task to fail its health check. We also show that prompt-based safeguards are insufficient: an instruction to avoid affecting existing tasks reduces but does not eliminate preemption, while an instruction explicitly authorizing the agent to stop local processes increases it. More concerningly, in 31.9% of successful destructive-preemption cases, the final response mentions neither the resource conflict nor the action taken to resolve it, raising concerns about possible concealment. These findings establish destructive resource preemption as a broad safety risk in privileged agent systems and motivate stronger privilege controls, task isolation, and conflict-aware safeguards.

AI pentesting agents are increasingly credible as offensive security systems, but current benchmarks still provide limited guidance on which will perform best in real-world targets. Existing evaluation protocols assess and optimize for predefined goals such as capture-the-flag, remote code execution, exploit reproduction, or trajectory similarity, in simplified or narrow settings. These tools are valuable for measuring bounded capabilities, yet they do not adequately capture the complexity, open-ended exploration, and strategic decision-making required in realistic pentesting. In this paper, we present a practical evaluation protocol that shifts assessment from task completion to validated vulnerability discovery, allowing evaluation in sufficiently complex targets spanning multiple attack surfaces and vulnerability classes. The protocol combines structured ground-truth with LLM-based semantic matching to identify vulnerabilities, bipartite resolution to score findings under realistic ambiguity, continuous ground-truth maintenance, repeated and cumulative evaluation of stochastic agents, efficiency metrics, and reduced-suite selection for sustainable experimentation. This protocol extends the state of the art by enabling a more realistic, operationally informative comparison of AI pentesting agents. To enable reproducibility, we also release expert-annotated ground truth and code for the proposed evaluation protocol: https://github.com/ethiack/ethibench.

As LM agents gain the ability to execute actions on real computer systems, we need ways to not only prevent harmful actions at scale but also effectively remediate harm when prevention fails. We formalize a solution to this neglected challenge in post-execution safeguards as harm recovery: the problem of optimally steering an agent from a harmful state back to a safe one in alignment with human preferences. We ground preference-aligned recovery through a formative user study that identifies valued recovery dimensions and produces a natural language rubric. Our dataset of 1,150 pairwise judgments reveals context-dependent shifts in attribute importance, such as preferences for pragmatic, targeted strategies over comprehensive long-term approaches. We operationalize these learned insights in a reward model, re-ranking multiple candidate recovery plans generated by an agent scaffold at test time. To evaluate recovery capabilities systematically, we introduce BackBench, a benchmark of 50 computer-use tasks that test an agent's ability to recover from harmful states. Human evaluation shows our reward model scaffold yields higher-quality recovery trajectories than base agents and rubric-based scaffolds. Together, these contributions lay the foundation for a new class of agent safety methods -- ones that confront harm not only by preventing it, but by navigating its aftermath with alignment and intent.

One of the critical phases in software development is software testing. Testing helps with identifying potential bugs and reducing maintenance costs. The goal of automated test generation tools is to ease the development of tests by suggesting efficient bug-revealing tests. Recently, researchers have leveraged Large Language Models (LLMs) of code to generate unit tests. While the code coverage of generated tests was usually assessed, the literature has acknowledged that the coverage is weakly correlated with the efficiency of tests in bug detection. To improve over this limitation, in this paper, we introduce MuTAP for improving the effectiveness of test cases generated by LLMs in terms of revealing bugs by leveraging mutation testing. Our goal is achieved by augmenting prompts with surviving mutants, as those mutants highlight the limitations of test cases in detecting bugs. MuTAP is capable of generating effective test cases in the absence of natural language descriptions of the Program Under Test (PUTs). We employ different LLMs within MuTAP and evaluate their performance on different benchmarks. Our results show that our proposed method is able to detect up to 28% more faulty human-written code snippets. Among these, 17% remained undetected by both the current state-of-the-art fully automated test generation tool (i.e., Pynguin) and zero-shot/few-shot learning approaches on LLMs. Furthermore, MuTAP achieves a Mutation Score (MS) of 93.57% on synthetic buggy code, outperforming all other approaches in our evaluation. Our findings suggest that although LLMs can serve as a useful tool to generate test cases, they require specific post-processing steps to enhance the effectiveness of the generated test cases which may suffer from syntactic or functional errors and may be ineffective in detecting certain types of bugs and testing corner cases PUTs.

Code Large Language Models (CLLMs) serve as the core of modern code agents, enabling developers to automate complex software development tasks. In this paper, we present Poison-with-Style (PwS), a practical and stealthy model poisoning attack targeting CLLMs. Unlike prior attacks that assume an active adversary capable of directly embedding explicit triggers (e.g., specific words) into developers' prompts during inference, PwS leverages developers' code styles as covert triggers implicitly embedded within their prompts. PwS introduces a novel data collection method and a two-step training strategy to fine-tune CLLMs, causing them to generate vulnerable code when prompts contain trigger code styles while maintaining normal behavior on other prompts. Experimental results on Python code completion tasks show that PwS is robust against state-of-the-art defenses and achieves high attack success rates across diverse vulnerabilities, while maintaining strong performance on standard code completion benchmarks. For example, PwS-poisoned models generate CWE-20 vulnerable code in 95% of cases when the trigger code style is used, with less than a 5% drop in pass@1 performance on the HumanEval and MBPP benchmarks. Our implementation and dataset are here: https://github.com/khangtran2020/pws.

Mobile graphical user interface (GUI) agents have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in automating complex tasks, yet they introduce critical safety risks where a single erroneous action can lead to irreversible consequences. Existing safety mechanisms are primarily reactive, lacking the ability to assess risks before execution. In this paper, we introduce SeerGuard, a consequence-aware safety framework designed to mitigate these risks through pre-execution instruction-level screening and action-level risk assessment. Specifically, the action-level assessment analyzes agent-proposed actions within current GUI states, anticipating likely outcomes to identify risks before they are executed. To enable these capabilities, we construct a unified safety-augmented world model (SAWM) via multi-task learning, integrating semantic next-state prediction with safety risk assessment. Extensive experiments demonstrate that SeerGuard generalizes effectively across diverse mobile GUI agents. On Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct, it increases the safety-utility score from 0.191 to 0.596 at ω=0.8 and reduces the risk-cost score from 0.347 to 0.130 at α=0.8. Further analyses on our SAWM validate the effectiveness of the instruction-level screening, alongside the capability of action risk assessment and next-state prediction.

Evaluating and improving the security capabilities of code agents requires high-quality, executable vulnerability tasks. However, existing works rely on costly, unscalable manual reproduction and suffer from outdated data distributions. To address these, we present CVE-Factory, the first multi-agent framework to achieve expert-level quality in automatically transforming sparse CVE metadata into fully executable agentic tasks. Cross-validation against human expert reproductions shows that CVE-Factory achieves 95\% solution correctness and 96\% environment fidelity, confirming its expert-level quality. It is also evaluated on the latest realistic vulnerabilities and achieves a 66.2\% verified success. This automation enables two downstream contributions. First, we construct LiveCVEBench, a continuously updated benchmark of 190 tasks spanning 14 languages and 153 repositories that captures emerging threats including AI-tooling vulnerabilities. Second, we synthesize over 1,000 executable training environments, the first large-scale scaling of agentic tasks in code security. Fine-tuned Qwen3-32B improves from 5.3\% to 35.8\% on LiveCVEBench, surpassing Claude 4.5 Sonnet, with gains generalizing to Terminal Bench (12.5\% to 31.3\%). We open-source CVE-Factory, LiveCVEBench, Abacus-cve (fine-tuned model), training dataset, and leaderboard. All resources are available at https://github.com/livecvebench/CVE-Factory .

Coding agents can modify and test code across large software projects. Game development is a domain where agents must implement gameplay rules. A game can end in a valid state even after violating its rules during the run. Current game-development benchmarks replay fixed examples, score videos, or ask another model to judge the result. However, no existing benchmark checks game rules throughout execution across varied evaluator-selected scenarios while ensuring exactly reproducible verdicts. We introduce GameLogicBench, a benchmark of 72 gameplay-logic tasks in Godot projects. An automated evaluator checks each game's rules at every simulation tick. Across 403 hand-designed scenarios, seeded parameter variations produce 1,451 test cases. To ensure that the evaluator measures behavior rather than implementation choice, it must accept different correct implementations for each task while rejecting mutants, implementations with one required capability removed. The tasks span isolated mechanics, multi-system interactions, and repository-scale features. Across 20 combinations of language models and scaffolds, the best observed run solves 52.78% of tasks. Under Claude Code, all twelve models solve fewer tasks as task scope expands from isolated mechanics, through interacting systems, to repository-scale features. Agents inspect code more often and make more tool calls on repository-scale tasks than on isolated-mechanic tasks. Most unsuccessful submissions are runnable, but implement some required game behavior incorrectly. We compared versions of our benchmark evaluator built with and without validation using mutants. Without this validation, incorrect agent submissions passed. A separate analysis finds agents copying code from public repositories when network access is open. Reliable evaluation thus depends both on what the tests reject and on what external code agents can access.

LLM-based agents are increasingly deployed for software maintenance tasks such as automated program repair (APR). APR agents automatically fetch GitHub issues and use backend LLMs to generate patches that fix the reported bugs. However, existing work primarily focuses on the functional correctness of APR-generated patches, whether they pass hidden or regression tests, while largely ignoring potential security risks. Given the openness of platforms like GitHub, where any user can raise issues and participate in discussions, an important question arises: Can an adversarial user submit a valid issue on GitHub that misleads an LLM-based agent into generating a functionally correct but vulnerable patch? To answer this question, we propose SWExploit, which generates adversarial issue statements designed to make APR agents produce patches that are functionally correct yet vulnerable. SWExploit operates in three main steps: (1) program analysis to identify potential injection points for vulnerable payloads; (2) adversarial issue generation to provide misleading reproduction and error information while preserving the original issue semantics; and (3) iterative refinement of the adversarial issue statements based on the outputs of the APR agents. Empirical evaluation on three agent pipelines and five backend LLMs shows that SWExploit can produce patches that are both functionally correct and vulnerable (the attack success rate on the correct patch could reach 0.91, whereas the baseline ASRs are all below 0.20). Based on our evaluation, we are the first to challenge the traditional assumption that a patch passing all tests is inherently reliable and secure, highlighting critical limitations in the current evaluation paradigm for APR agents.

The growing awareness of safety concerns in large language models (LLMs) has sparked considerable interest in the evaluation of safety within current research endeavors. This study investigates an interesting issue pertaining to the evaluation of LLMs, namely the substantial discrepancy in performance between multiple-choice questions and open-ended questions. Inspired by research on jailbreak attack patterns, we argue this is caused by mismatched generalization. That is, the LLM does not have a comprehensive understanding of the complex concept of safety. Instead, it only remembers what to answer for open-ended safety questions, which makes it unable to solve other forms of safety tests. We refer to this phenomenon as fake alignment and construct a comparative benchmark to empirically verify its existence in LLMs. Such fake alignment renders previous evaluation protocols unreliable. To address this, we introduce the Fake alIgNment Evaluation (FINE) framework and two novel metrics--Consistency Score (CS) and Consistent Safety Score (CSS), which jointly assess two complementary forms of evaluation to quantify fake alignment and obtain corrected performance estimates. Applying FINE to 14 widely-used LLMs reveals several models with purported safety are poorly aligned in practice. Our work highlights potential limitations in prevailing alignment methodologies.

Clawdbot is a self-hosted, tool-using personal AI agent with a broad action space spanning local execution and web-mediated workflows, which raises heightened safety and security concerns under ambiguity and adversarial steering. We present a trajectory-centric evaluation of Clawdbot across six risk dimensions. Our test suite samples and lightly adapts scenarios from prior agent-safety benchmarks (including ATBench and LPS-Bench) and supplements them with hand-designed cases tailored to Clawdbot's tool surface. We log complete interaction trajectories (messages, actions, tool-call arguments/outputs) and assess safety using both an automated trajectory judge (AgentDoG-Qwen3-4B) and human review. Across 34 canonical cases, we find a non-uniform safety profile: performance is generally consistent on reliability-focused tasks, while most failures arise under underspecified intent, open-ended goals, or benign-seeming jailbreak prompts, where minor misinterpretations can escalate into higher-impact tool actions. We supplemented the overall results with representative case studies and summarized the commonalities of these cases, analyzing the security vulnerabilities and typical failure modes that Clawdbot is prone to trigger in practice.

The main issue with most evaluation schemes today is their "static" nature: the same problems are reused repeatedly, allowing for memorization, format exploitation, and eventual saturation. To measure genuine AI progress, we need evaluation that is robust by construction, not by post-hoc detection. In response, we propose VeRA (Verified Reasoning Data Augmentation), a framework that converts benchmark problems into executable specifications, comprising (i) a natural language template with placeholder slots, (ii) a coherent generator that samples valid configurations, and (iii) a deterministic verifier that validates parameters and calculates the corresponding correct answers for each configuration. From a single seed problem, VeRA automatically creates unlimited verified variants with reliable labels at near-zero marginal cost without human involvement. VeRA operates in two complementary modes. VeRA-E (equivalent) rewrites problems while keeping the underlying logic intact, useful for detecting memorization versus genuine reasoning. VeRA-H (hardened) systematically increases complexity while remaining verifiable, enabling reliable creation and labelling of fresh difficult tasks at the boundary of intelligence. Evaluating 16 frontier models with VeRA, we find: (i) VeRA-E improves evaluation quality and reveals contamination patterns. (ii) VeRA-H enables human-free generation of hard tasks with reliable labels. (iii) VeRA establishes verified benchmarks as a general paradigm. VeRA reconceptualizes benchmarks from static objects used until exhausted, to executable specifications generating fresh, verified instances on demand, enhancing robustness and cost-effectiveness for evaluation. With VeRA, we envision that evaluation in any verifiable domain can scale indefinitely without sacrificing label integrity. To stimulate future research, we have open-sourced all code and datasets.

Automated LLM-as-a-Judge frameworks have become the de facto standard for scalable evaluation across natural language processing. For instance, in safety evaluation, these judges are relied upon to evaluate harmfulness in order to benchmark the robustness of safety against adversarial attacks. However, we show that existing validation protocols fail to account for substantial distribution shifts inherent to red-teaming: diverse victim models exhibit distinct generation styles, attacks distort output patterns, and semantic ambiguity varies significantly across jailbreak scenarios. Through a comprehensive audit using 6642 human-verified labels, we reveal that the unpredictable interaction of these shifts often causes judge performance to degrade to near random chance. This stands in stark contrast to the high human agreement reported in prior work. Crucially, we find that many attacks inflate their success rates by exploiting judge insufficiencies rather than eliciting genuinely harmful content. To enable more reliable evaluation, we propose ReliableBench, a benchmark of behaviors that remain more consistently judgeable, and JudgeStressTest, a dataset designed to expose judge failures. Data available at: https://github.com/SchwinnL/LLMJudgeReliability.

Multi-stage analytical tasks require LLM agents to use intermediate evidence to decide whether to continue, redirect or stop. Self-reflection, in which an agent critiques its output, is widely studied, yet a critique does not show whether evidence changed the next action. We call that capability self-restraint. Existing agent benchmarks largely measure task completion or output quality and leave it untested. DMAIC-Bench evaluates it with 97 seeded tasks across 15 industrial cases in four sectors, built around Lean Six Sigma's explicit statistical prerequisites. Paired counterfactual variants require opposite actions at the same workflow position, distinguishing warranted restraint from indiscriminate stopping. We assess execution traces with a private scorer and final claims through independent expert review. Across 13 models from six providers, execution-level routing accuracy averages 92% on matched GO decisions and 19% on NO-GO decisions, counting any forbidden downstream computation as a route error. Execution traces show agents reporting correct diagnostics before performing analyses that those results disallow. Separately, blinded expert review of the 11 audited agents estimates that reports act on invalid evidence at 47% of reached NO-GO decisions, with an interval from 31% to 61%. Explicit stopping permission helps some models without consistently restoring correct decisions at both GO and NO-GO forks. Sixteen life-sciences tasks in bulk ribonucleic acid sequencing (RNA-seq) and case-control genome-wide association studies (GWAS) show that the same framework can evaluate evidence-dependent decisions beyond industrial workflows. Project code and data are available at: https://github.com/psptpx/DMAIC-Bench-public.

Turning ideas into full software projects from scratch has become a popular use case for language models. Agents are being deployed to seed, maintain, and grow codebases over extended periods with minimal human oversight. Such settings require models to make high-level software architecture decisions. However, existing benchmarks measure focused, limited tasks such as fixing a single bug or developing a single, specified feature. We therefore introduce ProgramBench to measure the ability of software engineering agents to develop software holisitically. In ProgramBench, given only a program and its documentation, agents must architect and implement a codebase that matches the reference executable's behavior. End-to-end behavioral tests are generated via agent-driven fuzzing, enabling evaluation without prescribing implementation structure. Our 200 tasks range from compact CLI tools to widely used software such as FFmpeg, SQLite, and the PHP interpreter. We evaluate 9 LMs and find that none fully resolve any task, with the best model passing 95\% of tests on only 3\% of tasks. Models favor monolithic, single-file implementations that diverge sharply from human-written code.

We present a reproducible pipeline for mapping Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVEs) to MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise techniques from free-text vulnerability descriptions. Rather than relying on the CWE->CAPEC->ATT&CK derivation chain, whose table-expansion artifacts we quantify, we train a multi-label classifier on a curated gold dataset of 1,207 CVEs from expert MITRE Center for Threat-Informed Defense mappings. The resulting model approximately doubles recall@5 compared with a zero-shot embedding-similarity baseline and improves every ranking metric. We then investigate whether LLM-assisted labeling can extend the gold dataset. Initial experiments suggest contradictory conclusions: a single run indicates degraded performance, while averaging over five random seeds suggests a small gain. However, an independent replication and an expansion-size study (100--984 additional CVEs) show that the apparent improvement is an evaluation artifact. LLM-generated labels, with approximately 0.39 agreement with expert annotations, provide no reliable improvement at any expansion size and reduce rare-technique coverage at around 1,000 added CVEs (macro-F1 decreases by 0.04). The root cause is evaluation noise. Selecting checkpoints on a small test split effectively maximizes over many noisy evaluations, producing recall@5 differences of up to 0.05 between otherwise identical runs. Using a corrected protocol based on validation-split checkpoint selection, the gold-only model achieves recall@5 of (0.673 \pm 0.019), and repeating the decisive experiment confirms the null result for LLM expansion. A final scaling study shows that additional expert-curated data consistently improves performance, whereas LLM-labeled data does not, indicating that the classifier is limited by label quality rather than dataset size. All datasets, models, code, and training logs are publicly released.