mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Automated Penetration Testing with LLM Agents and Classical Planning

arXiv 2512.11143 ↗First posted 11 Dec 2025cs.CRcited by 5

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

Abstract (arXiv)

While penetration testing plays a vital role in cybersecurity, achieving fully automated, hands-off-the-keyboard execution remains a significant research challenge. In this paper, we introduce the "Planner-Executor-Perceptor (PEP)" design paradigm and use it to systematically review existing work and identify the key challenges in this area. We also evaluate existing penetration testing systems, with a particular focus on the use of Large Language Model (LLM) agents for this task. The results show that the out-of-the-box Claude Code and Sonnet 4.5 exhibit superior penetration capabilities observed to date, substantially outperforming all prior systems. However, a detailed analysis of their testing processes reveals specific strengths and limitations; notably, LLM agents struggle with maintaining coherent long-horizon plans, performing complex reasoning, and effectively utilizing specialized tools. These limitations significantly constrain its overall capability, efficiency, and stability. To address these limitations, we propose CHECKMATE, a framework that integrates enhanced classical planning with LLM agents, providing an external, structured "brain" that mitigates the inherent weaknesses of LLM agents. Our evaluation shows that CHECKMATE outperforms the state-of-the-art system (Claude Code) in penetration capability, improving benchmark success rates by over 20%. In addition, it delivers substantially greater stability, cutting both time and monetary costs by more than 50%.

Key facts. Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Agent threats, guardrails and governance, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 29 of its 50 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 11 Dec 2025.

Builds on

29 of 50 references.

Closest ancestors · 3

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2025AutoPentester: An LLM Agent-based Framework for Automated Pentesting7 Oct
  2. 2025VulnBot: Autonomous Penetration Testing for A Multi-Agent Collaborative Framework23 Jan
  3. 2024PentestAgent: Incorporating LLM Agents to Automated Penetration Testing7 Nov

Other references · 26

  1. 2023Lost in the Middle: How Language Models Use Long Contextscited by 3,455
  2. 2024GSM-Symbolic: Understanding the Limitations of Mathematical Reasoning in Large Language Modelscited by 550
  3. 2025ZebraLogic: On the Scaling Limits of LLMs for Logical Reasoningcited by 201
  4. 2024LLMs Can't Plan, But Can Help Planning in LLM-Modulo Frameworkscited by 179
  5. 2024Large Language Model-Based Agents for Software Engineering: A Surveycited by 178
  6. 2025OpenCUA: Open Foundations for Computer-Use Agentscited by 160
  7. 2025GTA1: GUI Test-time Scaling Agentcited by 106
  8. 2023LLMs Cannot Reliably Identify and Reason About Security Vulnerabilities (Yet?): A Comprehensive Evaluation, Framework, and Benchmarkscited by 97
  9. 2024AutoAttacker: A Large Language Model Guided System to Implement Automatic Cyber-attackscited by 96
  10. 2024NYU CTF Bench: A Scalable Open-Source Benchmark Dataset for Evaluating LLMs in Offensive Securitycited by 93
  11. 2024From LLMs to LLM-based Agents for Software Engineering: A Survey of Current, Challenges and Futurecited by 86
  12. 2025Are Reasoning Models More Prone to Hallucination?cited by 64
14 more
  1. 2024Agents in Software Engineering: Survey, Landscape, and Visioncited by 60
  2. 2025RepoAudit: An Autonomous LLM-Agent for Repository-Level Code Auditingcited by 49
  3. 2025Large Language Models for Planning: A Comprehensive and Systematic Surveycited by 40
  4. 2025Unveiling Causal Reasoning in Large Language Models: Reality or Mirage?cited by 38
  5. 2019Autonomous Penetration Testing using Reinforcement Learningcited by 33
  6. 2024PenHeal: A Two-Stage LLM Framework for Automated Pentesting and Optimal Remediationcited by 30
  7. 2024Testing and Understanding Erroneous Planning in LLM Agents through Synthesized User Inputscited by 22
  8. 2013POMDPs Make Better Hackers: Accounting for Uncertainty in Penetration Testingcited by 14
  9. 2025CAI: An Open, Bug Bounty-Ready Cybersecurity AIcited by 14
  10. 2024Failure Modes of LLMs for Causal Reasoning on Narrativescited by 12
  11. 2013Penetration Testing == POMDP Solving?cited by 9
  12. 2013Attack Planning in the Real Worldcited by 8
  13. 2024AutoPT: How Far Are We from the End2End Automated Web Penetration Testing?cited by 8
  14. 2025LLM-Based Data Science Agents: A Survey of Capabilities, Challenges, and Future Directionscited by 7

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 5.

5 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2025Guided Reasoning in LLM-Driven Penetration Testing Using Structured Attack Trees
  2. 2025From Capabilities to Performance: Evaluating Key Functional Properties of LLM Architectures in Penetration Testing
  3. 2026What Makes a Good LLM Agent for Real-world Penetration Testing?
  4. 2025Construction and Evaluation of LLM-based agents for Semi-Autonomous penetration testing
  5. 2026Big Enough to Break Out: Tracking the Rising Capability of LLM Penetration-Testing Agents
  6. 2024HackSynth: LLM Agent and Evaluation Framework for Autonomous Penetration Testing
  7. 2025AutoPentest: Enhancing Vulnerability Management With Autonomous LLM Agents
  8. 2026LLM-Based Penetration Testing in the Presence of Honeypots ↗