TwinGridShield: Consequence-Aware Runtime Authorization for LLM Grid-Agent Actions
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Agent threats, guardrails and governance
Abstract (arXiv)
Large language model (LLM)-assisted energy-management tools can translate natural-language context into structured grid commands, but syntactic validity does not imply physical admissibility. This paper presents TwinGridShield, a model-independent runtime authorization layer that evaluates each proposed action in a deterministic network twin before release. The prototype checks connectivity, branch-flow, generator, and load-shedding invariants and records each decision in a hash-chained log. A controlled IEEE 14-bus study evaluates single-step switching, redispatch, and load-shedding actions using DC power flow and experimentally assigned branch ratings. In the matched-model experiment, a stochastic proposal source configured to select an unsafe action with probability p=0.84 produced 421 unsafe proposals in 500 attacked-condition trials, a realized rate of 84.2%. This value characterizes the configured surrogate and is not an empirical measurement of LLM prompt-injection susceptibility. TwinGridShield produced 0 unsafe releases in those 500 trials. Because action labeling and authorization used the same DC model, system state, branch ratings, and encoded constraints, this result verifies conformance of the implementation to its encoded authorization predicate rather than safety under model error. The principal robustness evaluation therefore introduces model mismatch. Unsafe acceptance reached 5.63% under bounded +20% and -20% per-bus load-measurement error and 30.09% when actual branch ratings were 20% below modeled ratings.
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 8 of its 20 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 15 Aug 2026.
Builds on
8 of 20 references.
Closest ancestors · 2
Same direction, newest first
- 2026Execution Is the New Attack Surface: Survivability-Aware Agentic Crypto Trading with OpenClaw-Style Local Executors10 Mar
- 2023Identifying the Risks of LM Agents with an LM-Emulated Sandbox25 Sep
Other references · 6
- 2022ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Modelscited by 8,695
- 2023Not what you've signed up for: Compromising Real-World LLM-Integrated Applications with Indirect Prompt Injectioncited by 1,443
- 2022Ignore Previous Prompt: Attack Techniques For Language Modelscited by 832
- 2017Safe Reinforcement Learning via Shieldingcited by 449
- 2025GridMind: LLMs-Powered Agents for Power System Analysis and Operationscited by 16
- 2025Grid-Agent: An LLM-Powered Multi-Agent System for Power Grid Controlcited by 15
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026ActGov: Governing LLM Agent Actions via Policy-Constrained Validation
- 2026Evaluating Jailbreaking Vulnerabilities in LLMs Deployed as Assistants for Smart Grid Operations: A Benchmark Against NERC Standards
- 2026Hybrid Analysis for Secure MCP Tool Use in LLM Agents
- 2026Toward Safe LLM Agents: A Survey of Specification, Verification, and Enforcement
- 2026NEXUS: Structured Runtime Safety for Tool-Using LLM Agents
- 2025A Multi-Agent LLM Defense Pipeline Against Prompt Injection Attacks
- 2026SafeMCP: Proactive Power Regulation for LLM Agent Defense via Environment-Grounded Look-Ahead Reasoning
- 2026PVDetector: Detecting Prompt Injection Attacks on Purpose-Specific LLM Agents through Policy-Violation Concept Analysis