This work proposes SARA, which treats action induction and execution authorization as distinct runtime roles and separates action provenance from execution authority, and applies No-History-Promotion to prevent historical recurrence from laundering action origins into execution authority.
Abstract
Tool-augmented LLM agents must rely on untrusted runtime Observations to complete open-ended tasks; however, when tool outputs no longer merely provide data but begin to specify concrete actions, they effectively become ``commands''that can drive real-world side effects beyond user intent. We argue that this risk arises from conflating action induction with execution authorization. To address this distinction, we propose SARA, which treats action induction and execution authorization as distinct runtime roles and separates action provenance from execution authority. On the Observation side, a context-isolated Action Probe exposes action-inducing semantics and persistently records action-origin provenance across steps as a review signal; on the execution side, actual tool calls are authorized only against the user objective and audited evidence from authorized successful executions, while satisfying goal, execution-chain, and argument-level support. To preserve this separation across multi-step execution, SARA applies No-History-Promotion to prevent historical recurrence from laundering action origins into execution authority. Across AgentDojo and AgentDyn, SARA limits ASR to no more than \(0.63\%\) across four primary evaluation settings while maintaining competitive task utility, and consistently reduces ASR across additional Agent backbones.
LLM agents can produce harmful effects through sequences of ordinary operations. Judging such actions requires establishing both the authority that permits them and the origin of the data they carry. We present AGATE, an authorization and data-provenance gate at instrumented agent-harness boundaries. Operator declarati...
Xiao-Ru Zhang, Zhuo-Ran Cheng, Kai-Lin Liu et al.· 4 citations
Large language model (LLM) agents increasingly execute long-horizon workflows through external tools, allowing untrusted outputs to influence subsequent actions and exceed user authorization. Existing defenses isolate injected content or constrain execution with predefined plans and static policies, but these approache...
Kai-Yuan Zhang, Yu-Ke Peng, Ke Jiang et al.· 1 citation· ⚡1
Coding-agent approval interfaces bind a human decision to a command or tool call, while developer tools execute the transitive workflow that invocation activates. Package installation can run lifecycle hooks and write files; an MCP call can exercise network authority. We call the resulting record-coverage failure appro...
Jin-Qian Zhang, Hao-Jun Xia, Shu-Jiang Wu et al.· 1 citation
Tool-using large language model (LLM) agents turn generated text into real side effects, so poisoned tool metadata, retrieved pages, memory, and reusable skills can steer the next call. Vetting an artifact before admission does not settle this. A safe variant and a leaking variant can produce the same admission evidenc...
Feng-Peng Li, Qi-Zhou Wang, Yu-Ke Hu et al.· 0 citations
An effect-history model that separates events in the external world from the runtime's observations of them, and a catalog of eight recurring external-effect anomalies that motivate reusable transactional contracts at the tool boundary.
SkillGuard is presented, a harness-level enforcement layer that treats this event as contamination and restricts future capabilities to disconnect the resulting state from deployer-defined forbidden states and preserves substantially more capabilities than binary restriction at the same attack success rate.
Wu-Jie Xiong, Rabimba Karanjai, Yang Lu et al.· 2 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.