{ "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": "2610.03014", "title": "Beyond Predefined Sinks: Security-Aware Dependency Analysis for LLM Agents", "summary": "The method replaces predefined-sink static analysis of LLM-agent codebases with candidate-centered dependency graphs that add agent relevance, trust-boundary, guard, and external-effect evidence for each security-sensitive operation. Cost is modest compute (50.8 minutes to analyze 37,542 files across 65 repositories) plus integration of a research-grade static analyzer, but it produces candidate artifacts that still require human triage rather than verdicts. It can fail by leaving 58.85% of candidates without recovered dependency evidence and 87.12% without guard evidence, and its evaluation layer covered only 22 behaviors in 13 repositories, so coverage on a given internal codebase is uncertain.", "rationale": "A small team shipping LLM agents with tool access can plausibly run this static analyzer on its own repositories to prioritize manual security review, but the incomplete evidence-recovery rates and limited reproduction-backed evaluation mean its findings need workload-specific validation before it is trusted as a gating control.", "technique": "Security-aware dependency graphs for agent code audit", "family": "seguranca_e_guardrails", "recommendation": "testar", "published": "2026-10-02", "as_of": "2026-10-18", "editorial_status": "indexed", "source_url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.03014", "independent_implementations": 1, "total_implementations": 2, "stars": 11, "citations": null, "claims": [ { "claim_id": "claim-01", "statement": "The method replaces predefined-sink static analysis of LLM-agent codebases with candidate-centered dependency graphs that add agent relevance, trust-boundary, guard, and external-effect evidence for each security-sensitive operation. Cost is modest compute (50.8 minutes to analyze 37,542 files across 65 repositories) plus integration of a research-grade static analyzer, but it produces candidate artifacts that still require human triage rather than verdicts. It can fail by leaving 58.85% of candidates without recovered dependency evidence and 87.12% without guard evidence, and its evaluation layer covered only 22 behaviors in 13 repositories, so coverage on a given internal codebase is uncertain.", "basis": "inferred", "result": "", "baseline": "", "conditions": "", "source_url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.03014", "source_page": null, "source_excerpt": "" }, { "claim_id": "claim-02", "statement": "On nine held-out cases, Security-ADG preserves 91.1% of reference context and all five observed guards, versus 20.0% for a sink-only view and 40.0% for a simplified ADG.", "basis": "inferred", "result": "", "baseline": "", "conditions": "", "source_url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.03014", "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": "" }