STELP: Secure Transpilation and Execution of LLM-Generated Programs
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Agent threats, guardrails and governance
Abstract (arXiv)
Rapid evolution of Large Language Models (LLMs) has achieved major advances in reasoning, planning, and function-calling capabilities. Multi-agentic collaborative frameworks using such LLMs place them at the center of solving software development-related tasks such as code generation. However, direct use of LLM generated code in production software development systems is problematic. The code could be unstable or erroneous and contain vulnerabilities such as data poisoning, malicious attacks, and hallucinations that could lead to widespread system malfunctions. This prohibits the adoption of LLM generated code in production AI systems where human code reviews and traditional secure testing tools are impractical or untrustworthy. In this paper, we discuss safety and reliability problems with the execution of LLM generated code and propose a Secure Transpiler and Executor of LLM-Generated Program (STELP), capable of executing LLM-generated code in a controlled and safe manner. STELP secures autonomous production AI systems involving code generation, filling the critical void left by the impracticality or limitations of traditional secure testing methodologies and human oversight. This includes applications such as headless code generation-execution and LLMs that produce executable code snippets as an action plan to be executed in real time. We contribute a human-validated dataset of insecure code snippets and benchmark our approach on publicly available datasets for correctness, safety, and latency. Our results demonstrate that our approach outperforms an existing method by a significant margin, particularly in its ability to safely execute risky code snippets. Warning: This paper contains malicious code snippets that should be run with caution.
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 41 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 9 Jan 2026.
Builds on
24 of 41 references.
References · 24
- 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,192
- 2021Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Codecited by 8,053
- 2021Program Synthesis with Large Language Modelscited by 3,509
- 2023Code Llama: Open Foundation Models for Codecited by 2,105
- 2023AutoGen: Enabling Next-Gen LLM Applications via Multi-Agent Conversationcited by 1,906
- 2023MetaGPT: Meta Programming for A Multi-Agent Collaborative Frameworkcited by 1,761
- 2023ChatDev: Communicative Agents for Software Developmentcited by 893
- 2021Measuring Coding Challenge Competence With APPScited by 879
- 2024A Survey on Large Language Models for Code Generationcited by 646
- 2024Executable Code Actions Elicit Better LLM Agentscited by 537
- 2023CodeGeeX: A Pre-Trained Model for Code Generation with Multilingual Benchmarking on HumanEval-Xcited by 294
- 2024CodeAgent: Enhancing Code Generation with Tool-Integrated Agent Systems for Real-World Repo-level Coding Challengescited by 278
12 more
- 2023The Impact of AI on Developer Productivity: Evidence from GitHub Copilotcited by 264
- 2023An LLM Compiler for Parallel Function Callingcited by 170
- 2024The Landscape of Emerging AI Agent Architectures for Reasoning, Planning, and Tool Calling: A Surveycited by 164
- 2023Software Testing with Large Language Models: Survey, Landscape, and Visioncited by 163
- 2022Large Language Models Meet NL2Code: A Surveycited by 135
- 2023RLTF: Reinforcement Learning from Unit Test Feedbackcited by 110
- 2025A Survey on Code Generation with LLM-based Agentscited by 104
- 2023LLMs Cannot Reliably Identify and Reason About Security Vulnerabilities (Yet?): A Comprehensive Evaluation, Framework, and Benchmarkscited by 94
- 2024Against The Achilles' Heel: A Survey on Red Teaming for Generative Modelscited by 55
- 2023No Need to Lift a Finger Anymore? Assessing the Quality of Code Generation by ChatGPTcited by 45
- 2023Efficient Avoidance of Vulnerabilities in Auto-completed Smart Contract Code Using Vulnerability-constrained Decodingcited by 14
- 2024Multi-Programming Language Sandbox for LLMscited by 9
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2025TypePilot: Leveraging the Scala Type System for Secure LLM-generated Code
- 2024AutoSafeCoder: A Multi-Agent Framework for Securing LLM Code Generation through Static Analysis and Fuzz Testing
- 2026SecureForge: Finding and Preventing Vulnerabilities in LLM-Generated Code via Prompt Optimization
- 2025Rethinking Autonomy: Preventing Failures in AI-Driven Software Engineering
- 2025DualGauge: Automated Joint Security-Functionality Benchmarking of Specification-Only Code Generation by LLMs and Coding Agents
- 2025SEC-bench: Automated Benchmarking of LLM Agents on Real-World Software Security Tasks
- 2025Application Modernization with LLMs: Addressing Core Challenges in Reliability, Security, and Quality
- 2025SCGAgent: Recreating the Benefits of Reasoning Models for Secure Code Generation with Agentic Workflows