cs.CRMay 11, 2026

Comment and Control: Hijacking Agentic Workflows via Context-Grounded Evolution

Authors: Neil Fendley, Zhengyu Liu, Aonan Guan, Jiacheng Zhong, Yinzhi Cao

Abstract

Automation platforms such as GitHub Actions and n8n are increasingly adopting so-called agentic workflows, which integrate Large Language Model (LLM) agents for tasks such as code review and data synchronization. While bringing convenience for developers, this integration exposes a new risk: An adversary may control and craft certain inputs, such as GitHub issue comments, to manipulate the LLM agent for unwanted actions, such as credential exfiltration and arbitrary command execution. To our knowledge, no prior academic work has studied such a risk in agentic workflows. In this paper, we design the first detection and exploitation framework, called JAW, to hijack agentic workflows hosted on automation platforms via a novel approach called Context-Grounded Evolution. Our key idea is to evolve agentic workflow inputs under the contexts derived from hybrid program analysis for hijacking purposes. Specifically, JAW generates agentic workflow contexts through three analyses: (i) static path-feasibility analysis to identify feasible agent-invocation paths and the input constraints required to trigger them, (ii) dynamic prompt-provenance analysis to determine how that input is transformed and embedded into the LLM context, and (iii) capability analysis to identify the actions and restrictions available to the agent at runtime. Our evaluation of JAW on GitHub workflows and n8n templates showed that 4714 GitHub workflows and eight n8n templates can be successfully hijacked, for example, to leak user credentials. Our findings span 15 widely-used GitHub Actions, including official GitHub Actions for Claude Code, Gemini CLI, Qwen CLI, and Cursor CLI, and two official n8n nodes. We responsibly disclosed all findings to the affected vendors and received many acknowledgements, fixes, and bug bounties, notably from GitHub, Google, and Anthropic.

Explore similar work

CardsList
Jun 27, 2026cs.AI

Characterizing Large Language Model Agentic Workflows: A Study on N8n Ecosystem

Large Language Models (LLMs) are rapidly being adopted in low-code and no-code automation platforms, where non-expert users design workflows that combine natural language understanding with external services and APIs. LLM agents are LLM systems that use LLMs as a core "brain" to reason, plan, and autonomously execute complex, multi-step tasks. In this paper, we present the first large-scale empirical study of LLM agentic workflows in low-code automation platforms. We analyze more than 6,000 publicly available n8n workflows and examine four aspects of their design: task distribution, structural and tool use patterns, reliability mechanisms, and autonomy levels. Our analysis shows that LLM workflows are not merely prompt response pipelines. Instead, LLMs are commonly embedded within broader automation structures involving control logic, external tools, communication services, storage systems, and human review points. We further find that while many workflows include lightweight post-processing or routing logic after LLM execution, explicit reliability mechanisms such as structured fallback paths, repair loops, failure-specific alerts, and human approval gates remain relatively uncommon. These results reveal a gap between the increasing deployment of LLM agents in practical automation ecosystems and the limited engineering support for reliability, safety, and governance. Overall, our study provides ten empirical findings and five research takeaways for researchers, platform developers, and practitioners seeking to understand and improve real-world LLM agentic workflows.
Yutian Tang, Yuming Zhou, Huaming Chen
Agentic WorkflowsMulti-Agent Large Language Model SystemsReliabilityAutomation and Machines
AskPDF
Oct 1, 2025cs.CR

Breaking the Code: Security Assessment of AI Code Agents Through Systematic Jailbreaking Attacks

Code-capable large language model (LLM) agents are embedded in software engineering workflows where they can read, write, and execute code, raising "jailbreak" stakes beyond text-only settings. Prior evaluations emphasize refusal or harmful-text detection, leaving open whether agents compile and run malicious programs. We present JAWS-Bench (Jailbreaks Across WorkSpaces), a benchmark spanning three escalating workspace regimes mirroring attacker capability: empty (JAWS-0), single-file (JAWS-1), and multi-file (JAWS-M). We pair it with a hierarchical, executable-aware Judge Framework that tests (i) compliance, (ii) attack success, (iii) syntactic correctness, and (iv) runtime executability to measure deployable harm. Across seven LLM backends from five families, prompt-only attacks in JAWS-0 achieve 61% compliance; 58% are harmful, 52% parse, and 27% run end-to-end. In JAWS-1, compliance reaches ~100% for stronger models with a mean ASR (Attack Success Rate) ~71%; JAWS-M raises mean ASR to ~75%, with 32% runnable attack code. Wrapping an LLM in an agent increases ASR by 1.6×\times, by overturning initial refusals during planning and tool use. Additional evaluations with SWE-Agent and OpenAI Codex exhibit similar trends, indicating that JAWS-Bench can be reused across multiple agent frameworks. Category analyses identify which attack classes are most vulnerable and deployable, motivating execution-aware defenses and refusal-preserving agent designs.
Shoumik Saha, Jifan Chen, Sam Mayers +3
Jailbreak DetectionCoding AgentsLlm-As-A-JudgeLarge Language Model Backbones
AskPDF
Jun 25, 2026cs.SE

A Deterministic Control Plane for LLM Coding Agents

LLM coding harnesses grant agents broad file and shell access, yet the configuration layer that steers them -- rules files, agent definitions, IDE-specific markdown -- is largely unmanaged. A prevalence study of 10,008 public GitHub repositories (n=6,145 agent config files) finds that agent configurations propagate as undeclared shared components: 10.1% of tracked paths are SHA-256 exact duplicates across independent repositories (fork-adjusted, threshold-independent), with 75.5% of clone pairs crossing organisational boundaries. Two further patterns are indicative: configurations are rarely revised (58% single-commit; 0.4 vs 0.6 commits/month age-normalised against CI/CD workflows), and rarely declare permission boundaries (<1% of agent configs vs 33% of Actions workflows, n=31 true positives). We propose a deterministic control plane above the harness that maps one-to-one to these gaps. Rel(AI)Build treats agent definitions as a managed supply chain (SHA-256 content addressing, HMAC-stamped lockfiles, hash-chained audit logs); enforces tiered permissions and attack-derived blocklists before LLM invocation; gates feature work through a phase state machine with requirement-to-file-to-test traceability; compiles a single canonical definition to seven IDE targets; and detects prompt drift via Jaccard similarity. Conformance tests on injected violations confirm each mechanism enforces its stated invariant; developer outcomes remain future work. Governance of this layer must be deterministic and tool-agnostic -- not delegated to further LLM orchestration.
Padmaraj Madatha
Coding AgentsRepositoryAccessTraceability
AskPDF