mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

SLEIGHT-Bench: A Benchmark of Evasion Attacks Against Agent Monitors

arXiv 2605.16626 ↗First posted 15 May 2026cs.CR cs.AIcited by 4

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

Abstract (arXiv)

Since autonomous coding agents generate complex behaviors at high-volume, we may want to use other LLMs to monitor actions to reduce the risk from dangerous misaligned behavior. To better understand the limitations of such monitors against the diverse attack strategies that a coding agent could use, we present SLEIGHT-Bench (Subtle Low-itEration Insight-Guided Harmful Transcripts), a benchmark of synthetic transcripts containing 40 attacks across 11 categories, each showing a coding agent covertly pursuing a harmful objective (e.g. weight exfiltration, credential theft, unmonitored rogue deployment). We find that 20 of 40 attacks are never caught by an Opus 4.6 monitor with extended thinking across 10 trials at a 1% false-positive rate, while the overall catch rate is 32%. We identify several evasion strategies such as exploiting model priors, user instruction ambiguity, and state manipulation, which facilitate creating attacks that evade frontier monitors. We also elicit stronger monitor performance using coding agents as monitors versus regular prompted monitors, and for some evasion strategies show improved catch rates with targeted monitor prompts. Our dataset and evaluation framework are available at https://github.com/safety-research/sleight-bench and https://huggingface.co/datasets/sleightbench/SLEIGHT-Bench.

Key facts. Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Agent threats, guardrails and governance, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 10 of its 21 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 15 May 2026.

Builds on

10 of 21 references.

Closest ancestors · 4

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2026MonitoringBench: Semi-Automated Red-Teaming for Agent Monitoring10 May
  2. 2025BashArena: A Control Setting for Highly Privileged AI Agents17 Dec
  3. 2025Async Control: Stress-testing Asynchronous Control Measures for LLM Agents15 Dec
  4. 2025Reliable Weak-to-Strong Monitoring of LLM Agents26 Aug

Other references · 6

  1. 2023Lost in the Middle: How Language Models Use Long Contextscited by 3,383
  2. 2023AI Control: Improving Safety Despite Intentional Subversioncited by 207
  3. 2025Measuring AI Ability to Complete Long Software Taskscited by 142
  4. 2022Is Power-Seeking AI an Existential Risk?cited by 101
  5. 2025On the Impossibility of Separating Intelligence from Judgment: The Computational Intractability of Filtering for AI Alignmentcited by 12
  6. 2025Bypassing Prompt Guards in Production with Controlled-Release Promptingcited by 6

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 4.

4 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Towards a Unified Misuse Monitoring Benchmark
  2. 2026ClawSentry: A Progressive Multi-Tier Security Monitor for Safeguarding Autonomous LLM Agents
  3. 2026Towards a Risk Assessment of Malicious Skill Files in Coding Agents
  4. 2026SpecGuard: Proving a Task Is Broken Before the Agent Cheats
  5. 2026SkillBloat: Token Amplification Attacks via Skill Injection in LLM Coding Agents
  6. 2024AgentHarm: A Benchmark for Measuring Harmfulness of LLM Agents
  7. 2026Baselines Before Architecture: Evaluating Coding Agents for Autonomous Penetration Testing
  8. 2026Prompted to Discriminate: Generalizing Malicious-Input Probes in the Wild