mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Can Agents Trust Their Skills? Uncovering Unsafe Chains of Trust in Skill-Based LLM Agents

arXiv 2609.39065 ↗First posted 30 Sep 2026cs.CR cs.AIcited by 0

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

Abstract (arXiv)

LLM agents increasingly rely on installable skills, which are packages of instructions, code, and resources that equip them with task-specific capabilities and, once installed, can be automatically invoked across subsequent user tasks. This creates a chain of trust in which users delegate authority to agents, while agent frameworks admit skill-provided content into the agents' context with insufficient validation, allowing malicious skills to influence agent behavior under that delegated authority. Yet, little is known about whether this trust model adequately constrains untrusted skill content before it reaches security-sensitive operations, or how frequently such trust violations arise in real-world agents. We present TrustProbe, a framework for uncovering unsafe chains of trust in skill-based LLM agents. First, TrustProbe analyzes agent source code to identify source-to-sink call paths from skill-controlled inputs to security-sensitive operations. Second, it generates semantically realistic SKILL.md seeds with injected canaries and evolves them through feedback-guided scheduling and mutation. Finally, it validates vulnerabilities using an oracle that confirms attacker-controlled flows and verifies observable harm. Across 11 open-source agents, eight with more than 10,000 GitHub stars, TrustProbe identifies 104 taint-style vulnerabilities. Validation on a large corpus of real-world skills collected from public hubs such as ClawHub further shows that 25.1% of skill-agent trials exercise the identified vulnerable paths, with payload injection successfully weaponizing 15 of the vulnerabilities. These results reveal a systematic trust failure in skill-based LLM agents: untrusted skill content can reach security-sensitive operations and exercise authority delegated by users to their agents.

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 31 of its 57 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 30 Sep 2026.

Builds on

31 of 57 references.

Closest ancestors · 13

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2026CI-Work: Benchmarking Contextual Integrity in Enterprise LLM Agents23 Apr
  2. 2026Skill-Inject: Measuring Agent Vulnerability to Skill File Attacks23 Feb
  3. 2026SkillJect: Effectively Automating Skill-Based Prompt Injection for Skill-Enabled Agents15 Feb
  4. 2026"Do Not Mention This to the User": Detecting and Understanding Malicious Agent Skills in the Wild6 Feb
  5. 2025Security Challenges in AI Agent Deployment: Insights from a Large Scale Public Competition28 Jul
  6. 2025Design Patterns for Securing LLM Agents against Prompt Injections10 Jun
  7. 2025Prompt Injection Attack to Tool Selection in LLM Agents28 Apr
  8. 2025WASP: Benchmarking Web Agent Security Against Prompt Injection Attacks22 Apr
  9. 2025Adaptive Attacks Break Defenses Against Indirect Prompt Injection Attacks on LLM Agents27 Feb
  10. 2024Agent Security Bench (ASB): Formalizing and Benchmarking Attacks and Defenses in LLM-based Agents3 Oct
  11. 2024AgentPoison: Red-teaming LLM Agents via Poisoning Memory or Knowledge Bases17 Jul
  12. 2024InjecAgent: Benchmarking Indirect Prompt Injections in Tool-Integrated Large Language Model Agents5 Mar
1 more
  1. 2023Identifying the Risks of LM Agents with an LM-Emulated Sandbox25 Sep

Other references · 18

  1. 2022ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Modelscited by 8,695
  2. 2023Toolformer: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Use Toolscited by 4,182
  3. 2023ToolLLM: Facilitating Large Language Models to Master 16000+ Real-world APIscited by 1,947
  4. 2023Not what you've signed up for: Compromising Real-World LLM-Integrated Applications with Indirect Prompt Injectioncited by 1,443
  5. 2024Executable Code Actions Elicit Better LLM Agentscited by 564
  6. 2024StruQ: Defending Against Prompt Injection with Structured Queriescited by 375
  7. 2023Benchmarking and Defending Against Indirect Prompt Injection Attacks on Large Language Modelscited by 264
  8. 2023Can LLMs Keep a Secret? Testing Privacy Implications of Language Models via Contextual Integrity Theorycited by 230
  9. 2024SecAlign: Defending Against Prompt Injection with Preference Optimizationcited by 210
  10. 2024PrivacyLens: Evaluating Privacy Norm Awareness of Language Models in Actioncited by 171
  11. 2023Tensor Trust: Interpretable Prompt Injection Attacks from an Online Gamecited by 145
  12. 2020Backstabber's Knife Collection: A Review of Open Source Software Supply Chain Attackscited by 61
6 more
  1. 2019Small World with High Risks: A Study of Security Threats in the npm Ecosystemcited by 37
  2. 2023Demystifying RCE Vulnerabilities in LLM-Integrated Appscited by 37
  3. 2025GuidedBench: Measuring and Mitigating the Evaluation Discrepancies of In-the-wild LLM Jailbreak Methodscited by 12
  4. 2026SkCC: Portable and Secure Skill Compilation for Cross-Framework LLM Agentscited by 8
  5. 2026ClawHub Security Signals: When VirusTotal, Static Analysis, and SkillSpector Disagreecited by 6
  6. 2026Cutting the Gordian Knot: Detecting Malicious PyPI Packages via a Knowledge-Mining Frameworkcited by 2

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Black-Box Skill Stealing Attack from Proprietary LLM Agents: An Empirical Study
  2. 2026AgentTrap: Measuring Runtime Trust Failures in Third-Party Agent Skills
  3. 2026Proteus: A Self-Evolving Red Team for Agent Skill Ecosystems
  4. 2026SLBench: Evaluating How LLM Agents Follow Logical Relations in Skills
  5. 2026Agent Skills in the Wild: An Empirical Study of Security Vulnerabilities at Scale
  6. 2026When Safe Skills Collide: Measuring Compositional Risk in Agent Skill Ecosystems
  7. 2026Towards Secure Agent Skills: Architecture, Threat Taxonomy, and Security Analysis
  8. 2026Trust No Tool: Evaluating and Defending LLM Agents under Untrusted Tool Feedback