LLM agents like Claude Code can not only write code but also be used for autonomous AI research and engineering \citep{rank2026posttrainbench, novikov2025alphaevolve}. We show that an \emph{autoresearch}-style pipeline \citep{karpathy2026autoresearch} powered by Claude Code discovers novel white-box adversarial attack \textit{algorithms} that \textbf{significantly outperform all existing (30+) methods} in jailbreaking and prompt injection evaluations. Starting from existing attack implementations, such as GCG~\citep{zou2023universal}, the agent iterates to produce new algorithms achieving up to 40\% attack success rate on CBRN queries against GPT-OSS-Safeguard-20B, compared to $\leq$10\% for existing algorithms (\Cref{fig:teaser}, left). The discovered algorithms generalize: attacks optimized on surrogate models transfer directly to held-out models, achieving \textbf{100\% ASR against Meta-SecAlign-70B} \citep{chen2025secalign} versus 56\% for the best baseline (\Cref{fig:teaser}, middle). Extending the findings of~\cite{carlini2025autoadvexbench}, our results are an early demonstration that incremental safety and security research can be automated using LLM agents. White-box adversarial red-teaming is particularly well-suited for this: existing methods provide strong starting points, and the optimization objective yields dense, quantitative feedback. We release all discovered attacks alongside baseline implementations and evaluation code at https://github.com/romovpa/claudini.

LLM-based agents execute real-world workflows via tools and memory. These affordances enable ill-intended adversaries to also use these agents to carry out complex misuse scenarios. Existing agent misuse benchmarks largely test single-prompt instructions, leaving a gap in measuring how agents end up helping with harmful or illegal tasks over multiple turns. We introduce STING (Sequential Testing of Illicit N-step Goal execution), an automated red-teaming framework that constructs a step-by-step illicit plan grounded in a benign persona and iteratively probes a target agent with adaptive follow-ups, using judge agents to track phase completion. We further introduce an analysis framework that models multi-turn red-teaming as a time-to-first-jailbreak random variable, enabling analysis tools like discovery curves, hazard-ratio attribution by attack language, and a new metric: Restricted Mean Jailbreak Discovery. Across AgentHarm scenarios, STING yields substantially higher illicit-task completion than single-turn prompting and chat-oriented multi-turn baselines adapted to tool-using agents. In multilingual evaluations across six non-English settings, we find that attack success and illicit-task completion do not consistently increase in lower-resource languages, diverging from common chatbot findings. Overall, STING provides a practical way to evaluate and stress-test agent misuse in realistic deployment settings, where interactions are inherently multi-turn and often multilingual.

As language models evolve into autonomous agents that act and communicate on behalf of users, ensuring safety in multi-agent ecosystems becomes a central challenge. Interactions between personal assistants and external service providers expose a core tension between utility and protection: effective collaboration requires information sharing, yet every exchange creates new attack surfaces. We introduce ConVerse, a dynamic benchmark for evaluating privacy and security risks in agent-agent interactions. ConVerse spans three practical domains (travel, real estate, insurance) with 12 user personas and over 864 contextually grounded attacks (611 privacy, 253 security). Unlike prior single-agent settings, it models autonomous, multi-turn agent-to-agent conversations where malicious requests are embedded within plausible discourse. Privacy is tested through a three-tier taxonomy assessing abstraction quality, while security attacks target tool use and preference manipulation. Evaluating seven state-of-the-art models reveals persistent vulnerabilities; privacy attacks succeed in up to 88% of cases and security breaches in up to 60%, with stronger models leaking more. By unifying privacy and security within interactive multi-agent contexts, ConVerse reframes safety as an emergent property of communication.

Enabling continual learning in LLMs remains a key unresolved research challenge. In a recent announcement, a frontier LLM company made a step towards this by introducing Agent Skills, a framework that equips agents with new knowledge based on instructions stored in simple markdown files. Although Agent Skills can be a very useful tool, we show that they are fundamentally insecure, since they enable trivially simple prompt injections. We demonstrate how to hide malicious instructions in long Agent Skill files and referenced scripts to exfiltrate sensitive data, such as internal files or passwords. Importantly, we show how to bypass system-level guardrails of a popular coding agent: a benign, task-specific approval with the "Don't ask again" option can carry over to closely related but harmful actions. Overall, we conclude that despite ongoing research efforts and scaling model capabilities, frontier LLMs remain vulnerable to very simple prompt injections in realistic scenarios. Our code is available at https://github.com/aisa-group/promptinject-agent-skills.

AI control protocols serve as a defense mechanism to stop untrusted LLM agents from causing harm in autonomous settings. Prior work treats this as a security problem, stress testing with exploits that use the deployment context to subtly complete harmful side tasks, such as backdoor insertion. In practice, most AI control protocols are fundamentally based on LLM monitors, which can become a central point of failure. We study adaptive attacks by an untrusted model that knows the protocol and the monitor model, which is plausible if the untrusted model was trained with a later knowledge cutoff or can search for this information autonomously. We instantiate a simple adaptive attack vector by which the attacker embeds publicly known or zero-shot prompt injections in the model outputs. Using this tactic, frontier models consistently evade diverse monitors and complete malicious tasks on two main AI control benchmarks. The attack works universally against current protocols that rely on a monitor. Furthermore, the recent Defer-to-Resample protocol even backfires, as its resampling amplifies the prompt injection and effectively reframes it as a best-of-$n$ attack. In general, adaptive attacks on monitor models represent a major blind spot in current control protocols and should become a standard component of evaluations for future AI control mechanisms.

Large language model (LLM) developers aim for their models to be honest, helpful, and harmless. However, when faced with malicious requests, models are trained to refuse, sacrificing helpfulness. We show that frontier LLMs can develop a preference for dishonesty as a new strategy, even when other options are available. Affected models respond to harmful requests with outputs that sound harmful but are crafted to be subtly incorrect or otherwise harmless in practice. This behavior emerges with hard-to-predict variations even within models from the same model family. We find no apparent cause for the propensity to deceive, but show that more capable models are better at executing this strategy. Strategic dishonesty already has a practical impact on safety evaluations, as we show that dishonest responses fool all output-based monitors used to detect jailbreaks that we test, rendering benchmark scores unreliable. Further, strategic dishonesty can act like a honeypot against malicious users, which noticeably obfuscates prior jailbreak attacks. While output monitors fail, we show that linear probes on internal activations can be used to reliably detect strategic dishonesty. We validate probes on datasets with verifiable outcomes and by using them as steering vectors. Overall, we consider strategic dishonesty as a concrete example of a broader concern that alignment of LLMs is hard to control, especially when helpfulness and harmlessness conflict.