# CONTINUITY: Security-Context Contracts for Composable LLM Agent Controls

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.05269 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.05269/

## 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.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [Agent threats, guardrails and governance](https://mlsanity.com/agents/agent-threats-guardrails-and-governance/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 8 of 8)

- [InjecAgent: Benchmarking Indirect Prompt Injections in Tool-Integrated Large Language Model Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.02691/) (2024)
- [Defeating Prompt Injections by Design](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.18813/) (2025)
- [Progent: Securing AI Agents with Privilege Control](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.11703/) (2025)
- [IsolateGPT: An Execution Isolation Architecture for LLM-Based Agentic Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.04960/) (2024)
- [Prompt Flow Integrity to Prevent Privilege Escalation in LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.15547/) (2025)
- [Formal Policy Enforcement for Real-World Agentic Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.16708/) (2026)
- [ARGUS: Defending LLM Agents Against Context-Aware Prompt Injection](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.03378/) (2026)
- [Context-to-Execution Integrity for LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.06000/) (2026)

## Built on by (most cited first, 3 of 3)

- [Authorization Revocation for Long-Running AI Agents: Root-Scoped Quiescence under Delegation and Asynchronous Execution](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.21284/) (2026)
- [Collective Loss of Control in LLM Agent Systems: An Epidemic Account of Mutation, Contagion, and Recovery](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.18460/) (2026)
- [Boundary-State Control for Tool-Using Language-Model Agents: Commit-Time Consistency under State Drift](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.37475/) (2026)

## 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.