# ASEval: Automated Trajectory-Level Security Testing for Autonomous Agents

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.22321 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.22321/

## 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 37 of its 50 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 21 May 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [Agent threats, guardrails and governance](https://mlsanity.com/agents/agent-threats-guardrails-and-governance/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 37)

- [Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.02155/) (2022)
- [Qwen3 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.09388/) (2025)
- [ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.03629/) (2022)
- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [Toolformer: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Use Tools](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.04761/) (2023)
- [Jailbroken: How Does LLM Safety Training Fail?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.02483/) (2023)
- [Not what you've signed up for: Compromising Real-World LLM-Integrated Applications with Indirect Prompt Injection](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.12173/) (2023)
- [The Rise and Potential of Large Language Model Based Agents: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.07864/) (2023)
- [Towards Understanding Sycophancy in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.13548/) (2023)
- [DeepSeek-V4: Towards Highly Efficient Million-Token Context Intelligence](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.19348/) (2026)
- [Ignore Previous Prompt: Attack Techniques For Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2211.09527/) (2022)
- [GPTFUZZER: Red Teaming Large Language Models with Auto-Generated Jailbreak Prompts](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.10253/) (2023)
- [Identifying the Risks of LM Agents with an LM-Emulated Sandbox](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.15817/) (2023)
- [AgentHarm: A Benchmark for Measuring Harmfulness of LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.09024/) (2024)
- [AgentPoison: Red-teaming LLM Agents via Poisoning Memory or Knowledge Bases](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.12784/) (2024)
- [Great, Now Write an Article About That: The Crescendo Multi-Turn LLM Jailbreak Attack](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.01833/) (2024)
- [Agent Security Bench (ASB): Formalizing and Benchmarking Attacks and Defenses in LLM-based Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.02644/) (2024)
- [Formalizing and Benchmarking Prompt Injection Attacks and Defenses](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.12815/) (2023)
- [RepairAgent: An Autonomous, LLM-Based Agent for Program Repair](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.17134/) (2024)
- [SALAD-Bench: A Hierarchical and Comprehensive Safety Benchmark for Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.05044/) (2024)
- [MasterKey: Automated Jailbreak Across Multiple Large Language Model Chatbots](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.08715/) (2023)
- [Qwen3Guard Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.14276/) (2025)
- [MemoryGraft: Persistent Compromise of LLM Agents via Poisoned Experience Retrieval](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2512.16962/) (2025)
- [Supply-Chain Poisoning Attacks Against LLM Coding Agent Skill Ecosystems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.03081/) (2026)
- [SOEN-101: Code Generation by Emulating Software Process Models Using Large Language Model Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.15852/) (2024)
- [S-Eval: Towards Automated and Comprehensive Safety Evaluation for Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.14191/) (2024)
- [ClawsBench: Evaluating Capability and Safety of LLM Productivity Agents in Simulated Workspaces](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.05172/) (2026)
- [From Assistant to Double Agent: Formalizing and Benchmarking Attacks on OpenClaw for Personalized Local AI Agent](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.08412/) (2026)
- [Don't Let the Claw Grip Your Hand: A Security Analysis and Defense Framework for OpenClaw](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.10387/) (2026)
- [Poison Once, Exploit Forever: Environment-Injected Memory Poisoning Attacks on Web Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.02623/) (2026)

## Built on by (most cited first, 2 of 2)

- [Representation Transitions Reveal Emerging Safety Risks in Multi-Turn LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.00400/) (2026)
- [When the Agent Becomes the Kernel: A Systematization of Security on the Path to AI-Native Operating Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.23700/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

As autonomous agents (e.g., OpenClaw) increasingly operate with deep system-level privileges to execute complex tasks, they introduce severe, unmitigated security risks. Existing LLM safety testing methods are largely built around prompt-level inputs and response-level judgments, while recent agent benchmarks remain limited in automation, trajectory coverage, and action-grounded judgment. In this work, we present ASEval, a novel automated security testing framework for autonomous agents. ASEval generates realistic benign multi-turn conversations, perturbs them into risk test cases through carefully designed perturbation operators, executes each case against the target agent, and applies an action-grounded oracle to judge the complete trace. We instantiate ASEval to construct A3S-Bench, a test suite of 2,254 executable multi-turn test cases spanning diverse usage scenarios, delivery patterns, and agent-level security risks. Extensive evaluation on 11 LLM-backed OpenClaw agents confirms that ASEval effectively exposes pervasive security failures. In particular, our proposed perturbation operators raise the average risk-trigger rate from 22.9% under existing injection techniques to 47.4%, as judged by an action-grounded oracle that matches human annotation at 93.2% binary F1. Our further analysis and case studies illustrate that such failures emerge from multi-turn delivery, persistent state, and tool-mediated actions that response-level evaluation overlooks.