{
  "schema_version": 1,
  "builder_plan": {
    "scenario": "An agent reads external documents or tool responses that may contain malicious instructions.",
    "change": "Replay attacks and legitimate lookalikes in an isolated copy of your agent workflow.",
    "baseline": "Your existing checks with the same tasks, permissions, and tool responses.",
    "steps": [
      "Locate the paper's implementation and check its license, model support, data needs, and hardware requirements. Stop here if you cannot obtain the required artifacts.",
      "Save a small set of representative product tasks and expected outcomes. Keep evaluation tasks out of any training or tuning, and choose quality and cost limits before running.",
      "Run the baseline and the proposed change on identical inputs. Keep other settings fixed and repeat paired runs to expose variation.",
      "Save per-task outputs, failures, timings, and all usage costs. Review regressions before expanding the test."
    ],
    "measure": "Successful attacks missed, legitimate actions blocked, detection delay, and review cost.",
    "decision": "Keep the change only if it meets your preselected quality and latency limits and improves the metric you care about after setup and operating costs. Otherwise retain the baseline. This is an exploration plan, not a validated recommendation."
  },
  "builder_review": null,
  "arxiv_id": "2609.30830",
  "title": "AGATE: Provenance-Based Runtime Defense Against Compositional Attacks on LLM Agents",
  "summary": "The method replaces LLM-in-the-loop safety judgments with a deterministic gate at agent-harness boundaries, grounding authorization in operator declarations and grants bound to exact parameters, plus data-provenance tracking and an effect ledger with forensic replay. The cost is integration effort via host-specific adapters (three harnesses are supported without host-code changes) plus measurable utility loss: six of eleven benign file-processing scenarios triggered denial events under content-based provenance policies, and security coverage depends on how deeply each host's observation points can be instrumented. It can fail through parameter-rewriting bypasses, content transformations that break provenance links, and legitimate-reuse patterns that the policy misclassifies.",
  "rationale": "A deterministic, LLM-free enforcement layer fits constrained infrastructure, but the demonstrated denial rate on benign workloads and the parameter-rewriting bypass require validation against the reader's own tools and policies before production adoption.",
  "technique": "Provenance-based runtime authorization gate for agents",
  "family": "seguranca_e_guardrails",
  "recommendation": "testar",
  "published": "2026-09-25",
  "as_of": "2026-10-18",
  "editorial_status": "indexed",
  "source_url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.30830",
  "independent_implementations": 0,
  "total_implementations": 0,
  "stars": 0,
  "citations": null,
  "claims": [
    {
      "claim_id": "claim-01",
      "statement": "The method replaces LLM-in-the-loop safety judgments with a deterministic gate at agent-harness boundaries, grounding authorization in operator declarations and grants bound to exact parameters, plus data-provenance tracking and an effect ledger with forensic replay. The cost is integration effort via host-specific adapters (three harnesses are supported without host-code changes) plus measurable utility loss: six of eleven benign file-processing scenarios triggered denial events under content-based provenance policies, and security coverage depends on how deeply each host's observation points can be instrumented. It can fail through parameter-rewriting bypasses, content transformations that break provenance links, and legitimate-reuse patterns that the policy misclassifies.",
      "basis": "inferred",
      "result": "",
      "baseline": "",
      "conditions": "",
      "source_url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.30830",
      "source_page": null,
      "source_excerpt": ""
    }
  ],
  "exposure_map": [
    {
      "dimension": "quality",
      "basis": "not_evaluated",
      "finding": "",
      "interpretation": "",
      "limitation": "",
      "next_check": "",
      "source_url": "",
      "source_page": null,
      "source_excerpt": ""
    },
    {
      "dimension": "compute",
      "basis": "not_evaluated",
      "finding": "",
      "interpretation": "",
      "limitation": "",
      "next_check": "",
      "source_url": "",
      "source_page": null,
      "source_excerpt": ""
    },
    {
      "dimension": "latency",
      "basis": "not_evaluated",
      "finding": "",
      "interpretation": "",
      "limitation": "",
      "next_check": "",
      "source_url": "",
      "source_page": null,
      "source_excerpt": ""
    },
    {
      "dimension": "operations",
      "basis": "not_evaluated",
      "finding": "",
      "interpretation": "",
      "limitation": "",
      "next_check": "",
      "source_url": "",
      "source_page": null,
      "source_excerpt": ""
    },
    {
      "dimension": "compatibility",
      "basis": "not_evaluated",
      "finding": "",
      "interpretation": "",
      "limitation": "",
      "next_check": "",
      "source_url": "",
      "source_page": null,
      "source_excerpt": ""
    },
    {
      "dimension": "security",
      "basis": "not_evaluated",
      "finding": "",
      "interpretation": "",
      "limitation": "",
      "next_check": "",
      "source_url": "",
      "source_page": null,
      "source_excerpt": ""
    },
    {
      "dimension": "data_and_training",
      "basis": "not_evaluated",
      "finding": "",
      "interpretation": "",
      "limitation": "",
      "next_check": "",
      "source_url": "",
      "source_page": null,
      "source_excerpt": ""
    },
    {
      "dimension": "reproducibility",
      "basis": "not_evaluated",
      "finding": "",
      "interpretation": "",
      "limitation": "",
      "next_check": "",
      "source_url": "",
      "source_page": null,
      "source_excerpt": ""
    }
  ],
  "risks": [],
  "minimum_test": [],
  "open_questions": [],
  "independent_tests": [],
  "lab_reproductions": [],
  "report_available": false,
  "validation_tier": "unknown",
  "evidence_tier": "unknown",
  "infrastructure_basis": "unknown",
  "equations": [],
  "equations_status": "not_fetched",
  "core_kind": "",
  "equations_fetched_at": "",
  "equations_source_url": "",
  "equations_source_sha256": "",
  "exposures_reviewed_at": "",
  "exposures_source_sha256": ""
}