mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

PlanFlip: Attacking Multi-Agent LLM Systems via Planning-Phase Prompt Injection

arXiv 2607.16199 ↗First posted 30 Apr 2026cs.AIcited by 0

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

also in 1 more
Abstract (arXiv)

Multi-agent LLM systems increasingly rely on a Planner to decompose goals into sub-task sequences that downstream Executor and Critic agents execute and audit. We identify the planning phase as a critical attack surface: a single injection into the Planner's context achieves cascade amplification, corrupting all downstream sub-tasks simultaneously. We introduce PlanFlip, a framework comprising four planning-phase prompt injection attacks -- GoalSubstitution (PF-1), PriorityInversion (PF-2), ContextPollution (PF-3), and RoleConfusion (PF-4) -- each disguised as plausible tool outputs to evade keyword filters. Evaluating nine frontier LLMs across 3,479 episodes, we uncover three findings: (1) capability amplifies vulnerability -- GPT-5 achieves the highest attack success rate (ASR = 0.68), contradicting the assumption that stronger models are inherently more secure; (2) homogeneous pipelines exhibit a correlated-agent blind spot -- GPT-4o and Llama-3.3-70B show ASR near 0 yet Stealth = 1.00 and StepShift > 0, with attacks restructuring plans while the same-backbone Critic reports alignment (two independent judges confirm -0.20 to -0.32 semantic deviation, r = 0.943); (3) reasoning-augmented models resist injections -- DeepSeek-R1 achieves StepShift = 0.00 across all attacks. We propose GoalAnchorCheck (D1) and CrossAgentConsensus (D2), achieving detection rates up to 1.00 and outperforming same-backbone baselines in 15 of 16 cells. Our key insight: heterogeneous model diversity is a security prerequisite for multi-agent systems; redundancy within a homogeneous backbone provides no protection against planning-phase attacks.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Agent threats, guardrails and governance, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 28 of its 40 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 30 Apr 2026.

Builds on

28 of 40 references.

Closest ancestors · 9

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2025A Survey on Autonomy-Induced Security Risks in Large Model-Based Agents30 Jun
  2. 2025Adaptive Attacks Break Defenses Against Indirect Prompt Injection Attacks on LLM Agents27 Feb
  3. 2025Red-Teaming LLM Multi-Agent Systems via Communication Attacks20 Feb
  4. 2024AgentHarm: A Benchmark for Measuring Harmfulness of LLM Agents11 Oct
  5. 2024Prompt Infection: LLM-to-LLM Prompt Injection within Multi-Agent Systems9 Oct
  6. 2024AgentPoison: Red-teaming LLM Agents via Poisoning Memory or Knowledge Bases17 Jul
  7. 2024BadAgent: Inserting and Activating Backdoor Attacks in LLM Agents5 Jun
  8. 2024InjecAgent: Benchmarking Indirect Prompt Injections in Tool-Integrated Large Language Model Agents5 Mar
  9. 2024TrustAgent: Towards Safe and Trustworthy LLM-based Agents2 Feb

Other references · 19

  1. 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,971
  2. 2022ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Modelscited by 8,695
  3. 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,626
  4. 2024Qwen2.5 Technical Reportcited by 4,942
  5. 2023Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learningcited by 4,276
  6. 2023Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedbackcited by 3,442
  7. 2023Tree of Thoughts: Deliberate Problem Solving with Large Language Modelscited by 3,211
  8. 2023Universal and Transferable Adversarial Attacks on Aligned Language Modelscited by 3,104
  9. 2022Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedbackcited by 3,050
  10. 2023A Survey on Large Language Model based Autonomous Agentscited by 2,242
  11. 2023AutoGen: Enabling Next-Gen LLM Applications via Multi-Agent Conversationcited by 1,988
  12. 2023MetaGPT: Meta Programming for A Multi-Agent Collaborative Frameworkcited by 1,808
7 more
  1. 2023The Rise and Potential of Large Language Model Based Agents: A Surveycited by 1,439
  2. 2024HarmBench: A Standardized Evaluation Framework for Automated Red Teaming and Robust Refusalcited by 1,429
  3. 2023Jailbreaking Black Box Large Language Models in Twenty Queriescited by 1,420
  4. 2023Plan-and-Solve Prompting: Improving Zero-Shot Chain-of-Thought Reasoning by Large Language Modelscited by 560
  5. 2025Correlated Errors in Large Language Modelscited by 45
  6. 2024R2-Guard: Robust Reasoning Enabled LLM Guardrail via Knowledge-Enhanced Logical Reasoningcited by 43
  7. 2025Rating Roulette: Self-Inconsistency in LLM-As-A-Judge Frameworkscited by 38

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2025Architecting Resilient LLM Agents: A Guide to Secure Plan-then-Execute Implementations
  2. 2026Convergent Detour Hijacking: Task-Preserving Resource Amplification in Skill-Based LLM Agents
  3. 2026Misleading the Planner through Deceptive Resumes: Registration-Time Injection in Centralized Multi-Agent Systems
  4. 2026Think Twice Before You Act: Protecting LLM Agents Against Tool Description Poisoning via Isolated Planning
  5. 2026When Prompts Control Robots: Prompt Injection Attacks in Multi-Agent Robotic Systems
  6. 2026When the Manual Lies: A Realistic Benchmark to Evaluate MCP Poisoning Attacks for LLM Agents
  7. 2025PEAR: Planner-Executor Agent Robustness Benchmark
  8. 2026The Landscape of Prompt Injection Threats in LLM Agents: From Taxonomy to Analysis