SEVRA-BENCH: Social Engineering of Vulnerabilities in Review Agents
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Software engineering coding agents
Abstract (arXiv)
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in automated code-review systems, where their approvals can determine which code is merged into shared repositories. However, it is unclear whether review agents can detect vulnerability-introducing code when an attacker controls both the code change and the persuasive Pull Request (PR) narrative designed to mask it. We introduce SEVRA-BENCH (Social Engineering of Vulnerabilities in Review Agents), a benchmark that measures how often a review agent approves such adversarial PR s. Each PR in SEVRA-BENCH is built from a historical commit that fixed a vulnerability. We automatically reverse that fix to extract the original vulnerable code, and submit the resulting code change as a PR wrapped in one of 15 social-engineering framings. To test review-agent resilience to narrative manipulation, these framings vary dimensions such as supporting evidence, conveyed urgency, signals of prior approval, and appeals to authority. SEVRA-BENCH evaluates a retained challenge split of roughly 1000 adversarial PRs drawn from publicly disclosed vulnerability fixes across the top 10 entries of the MITRE's 2025 most dangerous software weaknesses. Evaluating 8 review agents against this benchmark, we reveal that review agents are susceptible to narrative manipulation, exposing a significant gap in security capabilities.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Software engineering coding agents, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 47 of its 83 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 11 Jun 2026.
Builds on
47 of 83 references.
Closest ancestors · 2
Same direction, newest first
- 2026GLM-5: from Vibe Coding to Agentic Engineering17 Feb
- 2024CodeAgent: Autonomous Communicative Agents for Code Review3 Feb
Other references · 45
- 2022ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Modelscited by 8,695
- 2023SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?cited by 3,373
- 2023Not what you've signed up for: Compromising Real-World LLM-Integrated Applications with Indirect Prompt Injectioncited by 1,443
- 2024How Johnny Can Persuade LLMs to Jailbreak Them: Rethinking Persuasion to Challenge AI Safety by Humanizing LLMscited by 573
- 2023Identifying the Risks of LM Agents with an LM-Emulated Sandboxcited by 548
- 2021Asleep at the Keyboard? Assessing the Security of GitHub Copilot's Code Contributionscited by 431
- 2024AgentPoison: Red-teaming LLM Agents via Poisoning Memory or Knowledge Basescited by 429
- 2023Formalizing and Benchmarking Prompt Injection Attacks and Defensescited by 364
- 2022Do Users Write More Insecure Code with AI Assistants?cited by 192
- 2024Vulnerability Detection with Code Language Models: How Far Are We?cited by 139
- 2020You Autocomplete Me: Poisoning Vulnerabilities in Neural Code Completioncited by 131
- 2025SycEval: Evaluating LLM Sycophancycited by 108
33 more
- 2022ReCode: Robustness Evaluation of Code Generation Modelscited by 103
- 2022Automating Code Review Activities by Large-Scale Pre-trainingcited by 98
- 2025CVE-Bench: A Benchmark for AI Agents' Ability to Exploit Real-World Web Application Vulnerabilitiescited by 96
- 2021CVEfixes: Automated Collection of Vulnerabilities and Their Fixes from Open-Source Softwarecited by 91
- 2025CyberGym: Evaluating AI Agents' Real-World Cybersecurity Capabilities at Scalecited by 78
- 2020Backstabber's Knife Collection: A Review of Open Source Software Supply Chain Attackscited by 61
- 2023TrojanPuzzle: Covertly Poisoning Code-Suggestion Modelscited by 60
- 2025CWEval: Outcome-driven Evaluation on Functionality and Security of LLM Code Generationcited by 59
- 2022Taxonomy of Attacks on Open-Source Software Supply Chainscited by 58
- 2025BaxBench: Can LLMs Generate Correct and Secure Backends?cited by 41
- 2023SALLM: Security Assessment of Generated Codecited by 39
- 2019Small World with High Risks: A Study of Security Threats in the npm Ecosystemcited by 37
- 2023Multi-target Backdoor Attacks for Code Pre-trained Modelscited by 23
- 2025LLM Can be a Dangerous Persuader: Empirical Study of Persuasion Safety in Large Language Modelscited by 23
- 2024AI-powered Code Review with LLMs: Early Resultscited by 22
- 2025BitsAI-CR: Automated Code Review via LLM in Practicecited by 22
- 2025Is Vibe Coding Safe? Benchmarking Vulnerability of Agent-Generated Code in Real-World Taskscited by 22
- 2025PATCHEVAL: A New Benchmark for Evaluating LLMs on Patching Real-World Vulnerabilitiescited by 21
- 2025LLMs are Vulnerable to Malicious Prompts Disguised as Scientific Languagecited by 17
- 2025SecRepoBench: Benchmarking Code Agents for Secure Code Completion in Real-World Repositoriescited by 14
- 2026Peer-Preservation in Frontier Modelscited by 9
- 2019A systematic review of fuzzing based on machine learning techniquescited by 8
- 2026RovoDev Code Reviewer: A Large-Scale Online Evaluation of LLM-based Code Review Automation at Atlassiancited by 6
- 2020On the Relationship between Refactoring Actions and Bugs: A Differentiated Replicationcited by 5
- 2021Why Security Defects Go Unnoticed during Code Reviews? A Case-Control Study of the Chromium OS Projectcited by 5
- 2023Toward Effective Secure Code Reviews: An Empirical Study of Security-Related Coding Weaknessescited by 5
- 2024Deep Learning-based Code Reviews: A Paradigm Shift or a Double-Edged Sword?cited by 5
- 2025Wolves in the Repository: A Software Engineering Analysis of the XZ Utils Supply Chain Attackcited by 5
- 2021Anomalicious: Automated Detection of Anomalous and Potentially Malicious Commits on GitHubcited by 4
- 2024DevPhish: Exploring Social Engineering in Software Supply Chain Attacks on Developerscited by 3
- 2025Bugdar: AI-Augmented Secure Code Review for GitHub Pull Requestscited by 3
- 2026Measuring and Exploiting Contextual Bias in LLM-Assisted Security Code Reviewcited by 3
- 2024Leveraging the Crowd for Dependency Management: An Empirical Study on the Dependabot Compatibility Scorecited by 1
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2025Improving Automated Secure Code Reviews: A Synthetic Dataset for Code Vulnerability Flaws
- 2026Understanding Dominant Themes in Reviewing Agentic AI-authored Code
- 2026Analyzing Message-Code Inconsistency in AI Coding Agent-Authored Pull Requests
- 2026More Code, Less Reuse: Investigating Code Quality and Reviewer Sentiment towards AI-generated Pull Requests
- 2026Predicting Acceptance and Review Effort in Human and Agent Pull Requests
- 2026CRJudgeBench: Can AI Detect Plausible but Invalid Code Reviews?
- 2026AgenticSCR: An Autonomous Agentic Secure Code Review for Immature Vulnerabilities Detection
- 2025VulAgent: Hypothesis-Validation based Multi-Agent Vulnerability Detection