mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

SoK: Measuring What Matters for Closed-Loop Security Agents

arXiv 2510.01654 ↗First posted 2 Oct 2025cs.CL cs.AIcited by 0

On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Agent threats, guardrails and governance

Abstract (arXiv)

Cybersecurity is a relentless arms race, with AI driven offensive systems evolving faster than traditional defenses can adapt. Research and tooling remain fragmented across isolated defensive functions, creating blind spots that adversaries exploit. Autonomous agents capable of integrating, exploit confirmation, remediation, and validation into a single closed loop offer promise, but the field lacks three essentials: a framework defining the agentic capabilities of security systems across security life cycle, a principled method for evaluating closed loop agents, and a benchmark for measuring their performance in practice. We introduce CLASP: the Closed-Loop Autonomous Security Performance framework which aligns the security lifecycle (reconnaissance, exploitation, root cause analysis, patch synthesis, validation) with core agentic capabilities (planning, tool use, memory, reasoning, reflection & perception) providing a common vocabulary and rubric for assessing agentic capabilities in security tasks. By applying CLASP to 21 representative works, we map where systems demonstrate strengths, and where capability gaps persist. We then define the Closed-Loop Capability (CLC) Score, a composite metric quantifying both degree of loop closure and operational effectiveness, and outline the requirements for a closed loop benchmark. Together, CLASP and the CLC Score, provide the vocabulary, diagnostics, and measurements needed to advance both function level performance and measure closed loop security agents.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Agent threats, guardrails and governance, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 24 of its 91 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 2 Oct 2025.

Builds on

24 of 91 references.

Closest ancestors · 8

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2025FaultLine: Automated Proof-of-Vulnerability Generation Using LLM Agents21 Jul
  2. 2025AutoPatch: Multi-Agent Framework for Patching Real-World CVE Vulnerabilities7 May
  3. 2025RapidPen: Fully Automated IP-to-Shell Penetration Testing with LLM-based Agents23 Feb
  4. 2025VulnBot: Autonomous Penetration Testing for A Multi-Agent Collaborative Framework23 Jan
  5. 2024PentestAgent: Incorporating LLM Agents to Automated Penetration Testing7 Nov
  6. 2024AutoPenBench: Benchmarking Generative Agents for Penetration Testing4 Oct
  7. 2024Teams of LLM Agents can Exploit Zero-Day Vulnerabilities2 Jun
  8. 2024LLM Agents can Autonomously Exploit One-day Vulnerabilities11 Apr

Other references · 16

  1. 2022ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Modelscited by 8,355
  2. 2017Model-Agnostic Meta-Learning for Fast Adaptation of Deep Networkscited by 4,861
  3. 2017On Calibration of Modern Neural Networkscited by 4,860
  4. 2023Toolformer: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Use Toolscited by 4,072
  5. 2017What Uncertainties Do We Need in Bayesian Deep Learning for Computer Vision?cited by 2,335
  6. 2017Multimodal Machine Learning: A Survey and Taxonomycited by 1,004
  7. 2020Meta-Learning in Neural Networks: A Surveycited by 944
  8. 2024Cybench: A Framework for Evaluating Cybersecurity Capabilities and Risks of Language Modelscited by 156
  9. 2025Flow-of-Action: SOP Enhanced LLM-Based Multi-Agent System for Root Cause Analysiscited by 32
  10. 2024A Case Study of LLM for Automated Vulnerability Repair: Assessing Impact of Reasoning and Patch Validation Feedbackcited by 22
  11. 2025PatchPilot: A Cost-Efficient Software Engineering Agent with Early Attempts on Formal Verificationcited by 22
  12. 2013Reasoning About Beliefs and Actions Under Computational Resource Constraintscited by 18
4 more
  1. 2024APPATCH: Automated Adaptive Prompting Large Language Models for Real-World Software Vulnerability Patchingcited by 18
  2. 2025Pentest-R1: Towards Autonomous Penetration Testing Reasoning Optimized via Two-Stage Reinforcement Learningcited by 4
  3. 2025RCA Copilot: Transforming Network Data into Actionable Insights via Large Language Modelscited by 3
  4. 2025Repairing vulnerabilities without invisible hands. A differentiated replication study on LLMscited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Cyber-Capable AI Agents: Vulnerabilities, Evaluation Containment, and Defensive Response
  2. 2026Towards Optimal Agentic Architectures for Offensive Security Tasks
  3. 2026StealthBench: Measuring Operational Stealth in Autonomous Offensive-Security Agents
  4. 2026A Survey of Agentic AI and Cybersecurity: Challenges, Opportunities and Use-case Prototypes
  5. 2025Cybersecurity AI: Evaluating Agentic Cybersecurity in Attack/Defense CTFs
  6. 2026Uncovering Security Threats and Architecting Defenses in Autonomous Agents: A Case Study of OpenClaw
  7. 2026Beyond Success Rate: Cost-Aware Evaluation of Offensive and Defensive Security Agents
  8. 2025Cybersecurity AI Benchmark (CAIBench): A Meta-Benchmark for Evaluating Cybersecurity AI Agents