Analyzing Code Injection Attacks on LLM-based Multi-Agent Systems in Software Development
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Agent threats, guardrails and governance
Abstract (arXiv)
Agentic AI and Multi-Agent Systems are poised to dominate industry and society imminently. Powered by goal-driven autonomy, they represent a powerful form of generative AI, marking a transition from reactive content generation into proactive multitasking capabilities. As an exemplar, we propose an architecture of a multi-agent system for the implementation phase of the software engineering process. We also present a comprehensive threat model for the proposed system. We demonstrate that while such systems can generate code quite accurately, they are vulnerable to attacks, including code injection. Due to their autonomous design and lack of humans in the loop, these systems cannot identify and respond to attacks by themselves. This paper analyzes the vulnerability of multi-agent systems and concludes that the coder-reviewer-tester architecture is more resilient than both the coder and coder-tester architectures, but is less efficient at writing code. We find that by adding a security analysis agent, we mitigate the loss in efficiency while achieving even better resiliency. We conclude by demonstrating that the security analysis agent is vulnerable to advanced code injection attacks, showing that embedding poisonous few-shot examples in the injected code can increase the attack success rate from 0% to 71.95%.
Key facts. Cited by 2 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 15 of its 27 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 26 Dec 2025.
Builds on
15 of 27 references.
Closest ancestors · 4
Same direction, newest first
- 2025GUARDIAN: Safeguarding LLM Multi-Agent Collaborations with Temporal Graph Modeling25 May
- 2025Securing Agentic AI: A Comprehensive Threat Model and Mitigation Framework for Generative AI Agents28 Apr
- 2025Multi-Agent Systems Execute Arbitrary Malicious Code15 Mar
- 2025Red-Teaming LLM Multi-Agent Systems via Communication Attacks20 Feb
Other references · 11
- 2021Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Codecited by 8,320
- 2023A Survey on Large Language Model based Autonomous Agentscited by 2,242
- 2023Code Llama: Open Foundation Models for Codecited by 2,139
- 2023AutoGen: Enabling Next-Gen LLM Applications via Multi-Agent Conversationcited by 1,988
- 2023MetaGPT: Meta Programming for A Multi-Agent Collaborative Frameworkcited by 1,808
- 2024A Survey on Large Language Models for Code Generationcited by 658
- 2023Self-collaboration Code Generation via ChatGPTcited by 258
- 2024MapCoder: Multi-Agent Code Generation for Competitive Problem Solvingcited by 177
- 2024On the Resilience of LLM-Based Multi-Agent Collaboration with Faulty Agentscited by 99
- 2024From Code to Correctness: Closing the Last Mile of Code Generation with Hierarchical Debuggingcited by 46
- 2025Guided Code Generation with LLMs: A Multi-Agent Framework for Complex Code Taskscited by 8
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.
2 papers.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2025Shadows in the Code: Exploring the Risks and Defenses of LLM-based Multi-Agent Software Development Systems
- 2024AutoSafeCoder: A Multi-Agent Framework for Securing LLM Code Generation through Static Analysis and Fuzz Testing
- 2026SoK: The Attack Surface of Agentic AI - Tools and Autonomy
- 2026AgentForge: Execution-Grounded Multi-Agent LLM Framework for Autonomous Software Engineering
- 2025Takedown: How It's Done in Modern Coding Agent Exploits
- 2026Prompt Injection Attacks on Agentic Coding Assistants: A Systematic Analysis of Vulnerabilities in Skills, Tools, and Protocol Ecosystems
- 2024CodePori: Large-Scale System for Autonomous Software Development Using Multi-Agent Technology
- 2026IssueTrojanBench: Benchmarking AI Coding Agents Against Malicious Issue Requests