mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

CONTINUITY: Security-Context Contracts for Composable LLM Agent Controls

arXiv 2609.05269 ↗First posted 4 Sep 2026cs.CR cs.AIcited by 3

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

Abstract (arXiv)

LLM agent systems increasingly combine provenance tracking, authorization, policy enforcement, protocol adapters, and execution controls. However, individually correct security mechanisms do not necessarily compose into an end-to-end secure system: security-critical context may be dropped, widened, rebound, or reinterpreted as actions cross component boundaries. We identify this failure mode as security-context discontinuity and introduce CONTINUITY, a framework for verifiable composition of agent security controls. CONTINUITY models each component with an assume-guarantee contract and carries authenticated security context across transitions using signed root grants, provenance commitments, role-bound transition receipts, bounded typed releases, transformation witnesses, and effect-bound execution permits. We formalize end-to-end consequence integrity, requiring every realized external effect to be backed by a valid and current authorization witness linking the principal, task, provenance, delegation, policy state, canonical action, and finality boundary. We implement a reference verifier and deterministic cross-layer fault-injection suite covering 32 fault classes across four application domains. In 2,560 parameterized attack instances spanning 128 fault-domain classes, the full CONTINUITY configuration commits no harmful external effect, while completing all 700 benign tasks and escalating all 200 ambiguous cases. These results show that secure agent execution requires not only sound individual controls, but explicit contracts that preserve their guarantees across the complete instruction-to-effect path.

Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (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 32 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 4 Sep 2026.

Builds on

8 of 32 references.

Closest ancestors · 8

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2026Context-to-Execution Integrity for LLM Agents7 Jul
  2. 2026ARGUS: Defending LLM Agents Against Context-Aware Prompt Injection5 May
  3. 2026Formal Policy Enforcement for Real-World Agentic Systems18 Feb
  4. 2025Progent: Securing AI Agents with Privilege Control16 Apr
  5. 2025Defeating Prompt Injections by Design24 Mar
  6. 2025Prompt Flow Integrity to Prevent Privilege Escalation in LLM Agents17 Mar
  7. 2024IsolateGPT: An Execution Isolation Architecture for LLM-Based Agentic Systems8 Mar
  8. 2024InjecAgent: Benchmarking Indirect Prompt Injections in Tool-Integrated Large Language Model Agents5 Mar

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 3.

3 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Structurally Close, Temporally Distant: Measuring Security Exposure in Long-Horizon LLM Agents
  2. 2026ElephantAgent: Contextual State Continuity in Agentic Systems
  3. 2026The Granularity Mismatch in Agent Security: Argument-Level Provenance Solves Enforcement and Isolates the LLM Reasoning Bottleneck
  4. 2026Alignment Contracts for Agentic Security Systems
  5. 2026PACE: Provenance-Aware Capability Enforcement for Tool-Using LLM Agents
  6. 2026AgentFlow: A Flow-Centric Policy Language and Framework for Securing LLM Agent Systems
  7. 2026A Framework for Formalizing LLM Agent Security
  8. 2026SecureClaw: Clawing Back Control of LLM Agents