HarnessRisk is a lifecycle-oriented benchmark for evaluating safety in agent harnesses that manage tools, extensions, state, permissions, and external actions. It defines six operational phases—Harness Configuration, Capability Extension, Runtime Operation, State Persistence, Action Control, and Incident Recovery—and includes 128 sandboxed cases pairing benign user objectives with adversarial instructions. Across three harnesses, six language models, and 14 configurations, attack success rates vary from 12.6% to 80.9%, with the most vulnerable phase being Harness Configuration.
"whyItMatters":"The benchmark demonstrates that safety failures can arise in multiple harness responsibilities and that even explicit risk detection does not guarantee safe action, underscoring the need for comprehensive evaluation across model and harness configurations."
By Yajing Bai, Jinhao Duan, Jie Peng, Xianfeng Wu, Sijia Liu, Song Wang, Tianlong Chen
arXiv:2605.12015v3 Announce Type: replace-cross
Abstract: Reusable skills are becoming a common interface for extending large language model agents, packaging procedural guidance with access to files...
By Chang Jin, An Wang, Zeming Wei, Kai Wang, Biaojie Zeng, Qiaosheng Zhang, Chao Yang, Jingjing Qu, Xia Hu, Xingcheng Xu
AgentXploit is a two‑role auditing system that separates repository‑level attack‑path discovery from runtime exploitation for AI agents. The Analyzer Agent traces attacker‑controlled inputs to sensitive operations and records candidate attack paths, while the Exploiter Agent turns these paths into concrete attacks and refines them using runtime feedback. The system is evaluated on AgentXploit‑Bench, a benchmark of 72 reproducible vulnerabilities across 12 open‑source AI‑agent systems, achieving 59.3% end‑to‑end success compared to 38.4% for Codex, and 79.2% attack success on AgentDojo versus 52.7% for AgentVigil.
By Weida Liang, Shi Qiu, Zhun Wang, Simon Sure, Xiaoyuan Liu, Tianneng Shi, Zhaorun Chen, Wenbo Guo, Dawn Song
arXiv:2606. 18356v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Tool-using language-model agents introduce security failures that go beyond unsafe text: they can disclose protected objects, write persistent memory, send messages, modify databases, or trigger harmful code and tool effects.
By Yuchuan Tian, Mengyu Zheng, Haocheng Mei, Ye Yuan, Chao Xu, Xinghao Chen, Hanting Chen, Yu Wang
arXiv:2606. 30755v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Claw-like AI agents (e.
By Peizhi Niu, Wenjie Qu, Shangding Gu, Tianneng Shi, Yuankai Li, Ahmad Tawaha, Hend Alzahrani, Vincent Siu, Boyi Li, Chenguang Wang, Jiaheng Zhang, Basel Alomair, Ming Jin, Muhao Chen, Chi Wang, Costas Spanos, Dawn Song
arXiv:2607. 20982v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: As large language model agents increasingly operate autonomously with access to tools and external environments, ensuring their safe and reliable behavior becomes critical.
By Vishal Ishwar Naik, Chenyu Xu, Donna Dong, Hussein Hassan, Abhishek Pradhan, Ofer Mendelevitch, Tallat Shafat, Humayun Irshad
arXiv:2605. 11047v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Agentic language-model systems increasingly rely on mutable execution contexts, including files, memory, tools, skills, and auxiliary artifacts, creating security risks beyond explicit user prompts.
By Hongwei Yao, Yiming Liu, Yiling He, Bingrun Yang
arXiv:2608. 09476v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Cowork agents may complete benign tasks while disclosing protected data, manipulating unauthorized state, invocate unauthorized API.
By Hongwei Yao, Yiming Liu, Meihui Chen, Jieling Chen, Zikun Chen, Yiling He, Wangze Ni, Cong Wang, Kui Ren
arXiv:2607. 20759v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: AI coding agents powered by LLMs are increasingly integrated into real-world software development, where they generate, edit, and execute code with autonomous access to local files and tools.
By Ankur Singh, Jinqiu Yang, Tse-Hsun Chen
The paper introduces the Static‑Pass Dynamic‑Fail (SPDF) phenomenon, showing that static analysis can miss vulnerabilities that are exploitable at runtime. Using a three‑stage pipeline—static scanning, LLM‑driven CWE reasoning, and autonomous exploit verification—it evaluated 1,355 Python samples and found that 14.53% of samples that passed static checks were actually exploitable. The study highlights that static‑analysis success and runtime security are distinct assurance layers, especially for AI‑generated and security‑sensitive code.
By Jessica Pourleyli, Maitreyee Das Urmi, Glaucia Melo
arXiv:2607. 01793v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLM agents increasingly perform autonomous actions through external tools, leading to complex and evolving safety risks.
By Yunhao Feng, Ruixiao Lin, Ming Wen, Qinqin He, Yanming Guo, Yifan Ding, Yutao Wu, Jialuo Chen, Yunhao Chen, Xiaohu Du, Jianan Ma, Zixing Chen, Zhuoer Xu, Xingjun Ma, Xinhao Deng
AgentAudit is an open, extensible framework that evaluates the full lifecycle of AI agents, assessing planning, tool selection, execution, memory, and reasoning across ten dimensions such as instruction integrity, security, and alignment. Unlike existing benchmarks that focus on single aspects, AgentAudit analyzes the entire execution trace to attribute failures to specific stages. The framework was tested on five large language models, revealing significant differences in trustworthiness even among models with similar task‑completion performance.
By Shrey Nag, Sachita, Abhishek Kumar Singh, Lipi Goel, Rajeshwar Singh Janwar