PlanTwin: Privacy-Preserving Planning Abstractions for Cloud-Assisted LLM Agents
Organizations: University of Technology Sydney · CSIRO Data61, Australia
Abstract
Cloud-hosted large language models (LLMs) have become the de facto planners in agentic systems, coordinating tools and guiding execution over local environments. In many deployments, however, the environment being planned over is private, containing source code, files, credentials, and metadata that cannot be exposed to the cloud. Existing solutions address adjacent concerns, such as execution isolation, access control, or confidential inference, but they do not control what cloud planners observe during planning: within the permitted scope, raw environment state is still exposed. We introduce PlanTwin, a privacy-preserving architecture for cloud-assisted planning without exposing raw local context. The key idea is to project the real environment into a planning-oriented digital twin: a schema-constrained and de-identified abstract graph that preserves planning-relevant structure while removing reconstructable details. The cloud planner operates solely on this sanitized twin through a bounded capability interface, while a local gatekeeper enforces safety policies and cumulative disclosure budgets. We further formalize the privacy-utility trade-off as a capability granularity problem, define architectural privacy goals using -anonymity and -unlinkability, and mitigate compositional leakage through multi-turn disclosure control. We implement PlanTwin as middleware between local agents and cloud planners and evaluate it on 60 agentic tasks across ten domains with four cloud planners. PlanTwin achieves full sensitive-item non-disclosure (SND = 1.0) while maintaining planning quality close to full-context systems: three of four planners achieve PQS , and the full pipeline incurs less than 2.2% utility loss.
Figures & tables
| Approach | ① | ② | ③ | ④ | ⑤ |
| Claude Code Sandboxing ( Anthropic, 2025b ) | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ |
| OpenAI Codex Sandbox ( OpenAI, 2025 ) | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ |
| MCP Specification ( Anthropic, 2024 ) | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | ✓ | |
| E2B / Firecracker VMs ( E2B, 2025 ) | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ |
| Progent ( Shi et al., 2025 ) | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ |
| MiniScope ( Zhu et al., 2025 ) | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ |
| Granularity | Example | Utility | Privacy Cost |
| Too coarse | process_project | Low | Low |
| Orchestration | security_audit(art_1) | High | Medium |
| Too fine | read_line(art_1, 42) | High | High |
| Field | Rationale | |
| kind | 0.5 | Low entropy, many objects share types |
| semantic_class | 2.0 | Higher specificity |
| contains (per tag) | 1.0 | Content indicators |
| usable_for (per tag) | 0.5 | Functional, less identifying |
| Typed edge (per edge) | 3.0 | Relational structure is highly identifying |
| freshness | 0.5 | Temporal bucket, coarse |
| Evaluation dimensions | Ref. | Results |
| Planning utility | § 5.2 | Table 5 , Fig. 3 |
| Sensitive-item non-disclosure | § 5.2 | Table 5 |
| System overhead | § 5.4 | Table 6 |
| Per-domain generalization | § 5.5 | Table 5 |
| Adversarial re-identification risk | § 5.6 | Fig. 4 , Fig. 6 |
| Pipeline stage ablation | § 5.7 | Fig. 5 |
| Planner | Method | Per-Domain PQS | Combined ( =60) | ||||||||||||
| Code | Doc | Debug | DevOps | Pipe. | SecIR | MLOps | Front. | DB | API-I | PQS | Prec | SND | NL | ||
| Cloud LLM Planners | |||||||||||||||
| Kimi K2.5 | Raw Context | 0.77 | 0.77 | 0.67 | 0.81 | 0.85 | 0.80 | 0.93 | 0.84 | 0.93 | 0.98 | 0.843 | 0.831 | 0.000 | 1.000 |
| Kimi K2.5 | PII Redaction | 0.85 | 0.80 | 0.75 | 0.88 | 0.93 | 0.93 | 0.89 | 0.88 | 0.88 | 1.00 | 0.887 | 0.886 | 0.835 | 0.165 |
| Kimi K2.5 | PlanTwin | 0.79 | 0.80 | 0.68 | 0.72 | 1.00 | 0.74 | 0.79 | 0.67 | 0.90 | 0.91 | 0.808 | 0.776 | 1.000 | 0.617 |
| Gemini 3 Flash | Raw Context | 0.81 | 0.40 | 0.67 | 0.90 | 0.95 | 0.88 | 0.87 | 0.78 | 0.91 | 1.00 | 0.832 | 0.833 | 0.000 | 1.000 |
| Planner | Method | Phase (mean) | Per-Domain Total Latency | Med. | ||||||||||
| Proj. | API | Code | Doc | Debug | DevOps | Pipe. | SecIR | MLOps | Front. | DB | API-I | |||
| Cloud LLM Planners | ||||||||||||||
| Kimi K2.5 | Raw Context | — | 53.0 s | 67.9 s | 101.5 s | 52.7 s | 88.0 s | 105.4 s | 111.2 s | 95.4 s | 48.4 s | 248.2 s | 137.9 s | 66.8 s |
| Kimi K2.5 | PII Redaction | 0.1 s | 79.1 s | 92.3 s | 60.1 s | 34.9 s | 73.7 s | 92.4 s | 102.4 s | 42.6 s | 306.7 s | 109.6 s | 332.5 s | 75.2 s |
| Kimi K2.5 | PlanTwin | 13.3 s | 81.2 s | 204.2 s | 135.2 s | 264.8 s | 65.5 s | 66.7 s | 112.4 s | 303.8 s | 377.0 s | 115.9 s | 103.2 s | 119.6 s |
| Gemini 3 Flash | Raw Context | — | 6.5 s | 17.8 s | 11.5 s | 12.9 s | 13.6 s | 12.2 s | 19.9 s | 19.3 s | 15.5 s | 17.1 s | 13.4 s | 14.4 s |
| Symbol | Meaning |
| Full local context at time | |
| Sanitized digital twin (= ) | |
| Privacy projection operator (4-stage pipeline) | |
| Output sanitizer (Stages 2–4 on execution results) | |
| Typed abstract graph (nodes, edges, attributes) | |
| Local capability catalog |
Appendix figures & tables1 asset
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Thm. | Property | Key assumption | Empirical evidence |
| 1 | -anonymity | -bounded side info | § 5.6 : 94.1% w/o budget |
| 2 | -unlinkability | Uniform on support | via budget |
| 3 | Composition bound | Cost calibration | § 5.9 : NL 1.0 |
AI Agent Security
Artificial intelligence agent security studies attacks and safeguards for tool-using, persistent, and collaborative systems across digital and physical settings.
See all 508 papers