mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

ClayBuddy: A Framework, Evaluation, & Mitigation of Coding Agent Failures

arXiv 2606.19380 ↗First posted 13 Jun 2026cs.SE cs.LGcited by 0

On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Software engineering coding agents

Abstract (arXiv)

Widespread deployment of AI agents in software engineering is surfacing a long tail of rare but highly dangerous misalignment bugs. Since sampling this behavior is intractable, we decompose these failures into three distinct mechanisms: underspecification, where default model behavior is unsafe; capability errors, where the safe action is available but the model does not adhere to it; and agent harness errors, where the safe action fails to execute. Across 8 evaluations that stress test these mechanisms, we find that frontier models are difficult to steer, elicit dangerous behavior through just 3 conditioning examples, and can randomly generate destructive commands at nontrivial probabilities. These three mechanisms naturally lend to targeted mitigations for each one, inspiring our harness modification ClayBuddy. ClayBuddy allows the agent to modify its own harness to provide safety guarantees, including a novel tool to selectively truncate its own context. We measure ClayBuddy's efficacy across safety and capabilities, finding that it eliminates violations across some tasks. This demonstrates that our decomposition is effective and is an example of our harness design philosophy.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Software engineering coding agents, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 14 of its 69 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 13 Jun 2026.

Builds on

14 of 69 references.

References · 14

  1. 2023Lost in the Middle: How Language Models Use Long Contextscited by 3,455
  2. 2024AgentHarm: A Benchmark for Measuring Harmfulness of LLM Agentscited by 437
  3. 2021AI and the Everything in the Whole Wide World Benchmarkcited by 349
  4. 2024R-Judge: Benchmarking Safety Risk Awareness for LLM Agentscited by 288
  5. 2024Adding Error Bars to Evals: A Statistical Approach to Language Model Evaluationscited by 148
  6. 2025SafeArena: Evaluating the Safety of Autonomous Web Agentscited by 102
  7. 2024RedCode: Risky Code Execution and Generation Benchmark for Code Agentscited by 90
  8. 2026Towards a Science of AI Agent Reliabilitycited by 65
  9. 2025Contextual Agent Security: A Policy for Every Purposecited by 59
  10. 2024Operationalizing Contextual Integrity in Privacy-Conscious Assistantscited by 37
  11. 2025Check Yourself Before You Wreck Yourself: Selectively Quitting Improves LLM Agent Safetycited by 12
  12. 2026The Hot Mess of AI: How Does Misalignment Scale With Model Intelligence and Task Complexity?cited by 10
2 more
  1. 2025StereoMath: An Accessible and Musical Equation Editorcited by 1
  2. 2025Phoenix: A Novel Context-Aware Voice-Powered Math Equation Workspace and Editorcited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Engineering Reliable Coding Agents: Evaluating and Operating the System Around the Model
  2. 2026AgentGuard: Learning Execution Guardrails from Anomalous Coding-Agent Trajectories
  3. 2026Code as Agent Harness
  4. 2026ABTest: Behavior-Driven Testing for AI Coding Agents
  5. 2026N-Version Programming with Coding Agents
  6. 2026Don't Blame the Large Language Model: How Agent Harness Evolution Shapes Coding Agent Quality
  7. 2026Agent Mesh: Reliability Primitives for Non-Idempotent Agent Delegation - Identity Adequacy and Evidence Adequacy
  8. 2026The Vulnerability With No CVE: Managing Persistent Gaps Between Mandate and Authority in AI Coding Agents