# Blocking at the Boundary: Auditing Long-Horizon Agents against Staged Prompt Injection

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.05163 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.05163/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Prompt injection and agent security, one of 12 directions in LLM safety and security.
- Builds on 61 of its 76 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 4 Oct 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM safety and security / [Prompt injection and agent security](https://mlsanity.com/safety/prompt-injection-and-agent-security/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 61)

- [ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.03629/) (2022)
- [Toolformer: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Use Tools](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.04761/) (2023)
- [SWE-agent: Agent-Computer Interfaces Enable Automated Software Engineering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.15793/) (2024)
- [Not what you've signed up for: Compromising Real-World LLM-Integrated Applications with Indirect Prompt Injection](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.12173/) (2023)
- [τ-bench: A Benchmark for Tool-Agent-User Interaction in Real-World Domains](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.12045/) (2024)
- [MemGPT: Towards LLMs as Operating Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.08560/) (2023)
- [Ignore Previous Prompt: Attack Techniques For Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2211.09527/) (2022)
- [Prompt Injection attack against LLM-integrated Applications](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05499/) (2023)
- [Identifying the Risks of LM Agents with an LM-Emulated Sandbox](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.15817/) (2023)
- [InjecAgent: Benchmarking Indirect Prompt Injections in Tool-Integrated Large Language Model Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.02691/) (2024)
- [The Instruction Hierarchy: Training LLMs to Prioritize Privileged Instructions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.13208/) (2024)
- [AgentPoison: Red-teaming LLM Agents via Poisoning Memory or Knowledge Bases](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.12784/) (2024)
- [StruQ: Defending Against Prompt Injection with Structured Queries](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.06363/) (2024)
- [Agent Security Bench (ASB): Formalizing and Benchmarking Attacks and Defenses in LLM-based Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.02644/) (2024)
- [Formalizing and Benchmarking Prompt Injection Attacks and Defenses](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.12815/) (2023)
- [Agent-SafetyBench: Evaluating the Safety of LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.14470/) (2024)
- [Defeating Prompt Injections by Design](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.18813/) (2025)
- [R-Judge: Benchmarking Safety Risk Awareness for LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.10019/) (2024)
- [Defending Against Indirect Prompt Injection Attacks With Spotlighting](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.14720/) (2024)
- [SecAlign: Defending Against Prompt Injection with Preference Optimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.05451/) (2024)
- [WASP: Benchmarking Web Agent Security Against Prompt Injection Attacks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.18575/) (2025)
- [ShieldAgent: Shielding Agents via Verifiable Safety Policy Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.22738/) (2025)
- [Memory Injection Attacks on LLM Agents via Query-Only Interaction](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.03704/) (2025)
- [DataSentinel: A Game-Theoretic Detection of Prompt Injection Attacks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.11358/) (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)
- [The Attacker Moves Second: Stronger Adaptive Attacks Bypass Defenses Against Llm Jailbreaks and Prompt Injections](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.09023/) (2025)
- [LlamaFirewall: An open source guardrail system for building secure AI agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.03574/) (2025)
- [Adaptive Attacks Break Defenses Against Indirect Prompt Injection Attacks on LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.00061/) (2025)
- [GuardAgent: Safeguard LLM Agents by a Guard Agent via Knowledge-Enabled Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.09187/) (2024)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Long-horizon agents consume external content, invoke tools, and modify persistent state. Indirect prompt injection can exploit task-specific context, propagate across causally connected stages, and alter a consequential action while the workflow continues; we term this staged prompt injection. We build an automated, feedback-guided attack generation pipeline and apply it to Claude Code and Codex in their native runtimes. The confirmed attacks span eight workflow scenarios, seven attack goals, and six injection surfaces, showing that production agents are vulnerable to context-aware, multi-step injection over long horizons. Stopping such attacks requires a decision before each consequential action: input screening and completed-run evaluation cannot locate the intervention point, and existing pre-action methods use incompatible units and labels. We therefore formulate boundary action auditing: given initial context, a trajectory prefix, and a fully specified pending message or tool call, an auditor predicts Pass or Block before its effect occurs. Pairing attacked and benign executions yields a 479-pair, 3,112-unit benchmark. We further propose Path-Aligned Attribution (PAA), a training-free auditor that decomposes pending actions into operative elements and traces what supplied each value and guided each decision. PAA blocks only when the model attributes an unwarranted, material effect on an element to an attacker-reachable source that either provides unqualified steering or conflicts with visible evidence. Under full-benchmark fail-open scoring with Claude Sonnet 5, PAA reaches 86% Block recall at a 6-8% false-block rate (FBR), whereas ARGUS reaches 44-47% recall at 16-33% FBR. Under the same backend, on the tool calls that all three auditors natively support, PAA has higher recall and lower FBR than VIGIL and ARGUS; all paired 95% confidence intervals exclude zero.