mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

TrustX Agent Risk Classification Framework (ARC): Risk-Tiering Internally Created Agentic AI Systems

arXiv 2607.09586 ↗First posted 10 Jul 2026cs.AIcited by 0

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

Abstract (arXiv)

The proliferation of agentic AI systems across enterprise and public-sector contexts has outpaced the capacity of general-purpose AI risk frameworks to classify and govern them. In this paper, we introduce the TrustX Agent Risk Classification Framework, a structured, repeatable instrument that can be applied to seven types of agentic AI systems and is grounded in foundational pre-existing AI governance frameworks. At the core of the framework is a twelve-dimension scoring rubric that robustly quantifies the risk. This rubric is combined with other components, such as the GPA + IAT classification model and the five-level autonomy framework derived from existing literature. These inputs produce a three-tier governance output with mapped control recommendations. A specialised Coding Assistant extension is also included to account for nuances specific to this type of agentic AI system. We then use an illustrative example to show our framework in practice. ARC is intended for AI governance practitioners, risk officers, developers, and regulators, and it will regularly undergo iteration as we continue to expand it and make it more robust. The community can access the interactive framework here: https://arc.responsible.ai/

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 13 of its 41 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 10 Jul 2026.

Builds on

13 of 41 references.

Closest ancestors · 3

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2026Prompt Injection Attacks on Agentic Coding Assistants: A Systematic Analysis of Vulnerabilities in Skills, Tools, and Protocol Ecosystems24 Jan
  2. 2024The AI risk repository: A meta-review, database, and taxonomy of risks from artificial intelligence14 Aug
  3. 2023Identifying the Risks of LM Agents with an LM-Emulated Sandbox25 Sep

Other references · 10

  1. 2021Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Codecited by 8,053
  2. 2023A Survey on Large Language Model based Autonomous Agentscited by 2,203
  3. 2023Not what you've signed up for: Compromising Real-World LLM-Integrated Applications with Indirect Prompt Injectioncited by 1,339
  4. 2021Asleep at the Keyboard? Assessing the Security of GitHub Copilot's Code Contributionscited by 417
  5. 2020Closing the AI Accountability Gap: Defining an End-to-End Framework for Internal Algorithmic Auditingcited by 380
  6. 2022Do Users Write More Insecure Code with AI Assistants?cited by 186
  7. 2025AI Agents vs. Agentic AI: A Conceptual Taxonomy, Applications and Challengescited by 167
  8. 2023Harms from Increasingly Agentic Algorithmic Systemscited by 134
  9. 2022Lost at C: A User Study on the Security Implications of Large Language Model Code Assistantscited by 87
  10. 2024Visibility into AI Agentscited by 77

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2025With Great Capabilities Come Great Responsibilities: Introducing the Agentic Risk & Capability Framework for Governing Agentic AI Systems
  2. 2025AGENTSAFE: A Unified Framework for Ethical Assurance and Governance in Agentic AI
  3. 2026From Agent Failure Paths to Quantified Residual Risk: A Compositional Framework for Resilient Agentic AI
  4. 2025A Safety and Security Framework for Real-World Agentic Systems
  5. 2025TRiSM for Agentic AI: A Review of Trust, Risk, and Security Management in LLM-based Agentic Multi-Agent Systems
  6. 2026Beyond Benchmark Islands: Toward Representative Trustworthiness Evaluation for Agentic AI
  7. 2026Risk Architecture for AI-Native Engineering Teams: An Organizational Framework for Agentic System Governance
  8. 2025Towards Adaptive Categories: Dimensional Governance for Agentic AI