SLEIGHT-Bench: A Benchmark of Evasion Attacks Against Agent Monitors

We introduce a red-teaming methodology that exposes harder-to-catch attacks for coding-agent monitors, suggesting that current practices may under-elicit attacks and overstate monitor performance. We identify three challenges with current red-teaming. First, mode collapse in attack generation, which we reduce with a novel attack taxonomy for broader coverage. Second, a conceive-execute gap: frontier LLMs can propose strong attack ideas or execute them, but not all at once. We mitigate this by decomposing attack construction into strategy generation, execution, and post-hoc trajectory refinement. Third, manual elicitation is costly to scale, which we address with our semi-automated red-teaming pipeline. Applied to BashArena, an AI control setting for tool-using coding agents, this pipeline produces MonitoringBench, a benchmark of 2,644 attack trajectories for evaluating monitor capabilities and failure modes. Our pipeline produces more diverse and stronger attacks: Opus-4.5 monitor's catch rate falls from 94.9% on elicited-only Opus attacks to 60.3% on our best refined attacks, with larger drops for several mid-tier monitors. Attacks optimized against three development monitors generalize to ten held-out monitors, with catch rates generally increasing with monitor capability. Using this benchmark, we provide a snapshot of the current monitor capabilities and find that frontier monitors often detect suspicious actions but fall for persuasion or fail to calibrate suspiciousness scores appropriately, suggesting tractable paths for improvement. MonitoringBench provides both a static benchmark for current tool-use monitors and a reusable methodology for refreshing these evaluations as agents and monitors improve.

A coding agent executes a benign task as a sequence of shell, file, and network actions, any of which can quietly exceed the authorized scope while the task still completes. We call this overeager behavior: the prompt is not adversarial and the run succeeds, yet an out-of-scope step can leak credentials or delete files. Existing benchmarks miss it: task-completion suites credit any finished run, jailbreak suites probe adversarial prompts, and the one prior overeager benchmark applies a single fixed prompt set to every agent-model pair, leaving its easiest and most resistant pairs under-measured. We present SNARE (Synthesizing Non-adversarial scenarios for Adaptive Reward-guided Elicitation), a pipeline that composes benign scenarios from reusable scope and trap fragments, scores each run with a judge-free oracle flagging trap-pattern matches and unsolicited file additions or deletions, and uses Thompson sampling to steer each pair's run budget toward the scenarios that most often trigger it. Instantiating it over 24 overeager archetypes yields OverEager, which we run across a 4x5 matrix of four coding agents and five base models. Across 10,000 benign runs, 19.51% trigger overeager behavior, with per-pair rates spanning 11.9x. This variation is driven by the agent framework, not the model: the framework accounts for 56% of it against the model's 21%, so any single-framework or single-model evaluation undercounts the matrix by about a fifth.

Coding agents often pass per-prompt safety review yet ship exploitable code when their tasks are decomposed into routine engineering tickets. The challenge is structural: existing safety alignment evaluates overt requests in isolation, leaving models blind to malicious end-states that emerge from sequenced compliance with innocuous-looking requests. We introduce MOSAIC-Bench (Malicious Objectives Sequenced As Innocuous Compliance), a benchmark of 199 three-stage attack chains paired with deterministic exploit oracles on deployed software substrates (10 web-application substrates, 31 CWE classes, 5 programming languages) that treats both exploit ground truth and downstream reviewer protocol as first-class evaluation axes. On this benchmark, nine production coding agents from Anthropic, OpenAI, Google, Moonshot, Zhipu, and Minimax compose innocuous tickets at 53-86% end-to-end ASR with only two refusals across all staged runs. In a matched direct-prompt experiment over four frontier Claude/Codex agents, vulnerable-output rates fall to 0-20.4%: Claude primarily refuses, while Codex primarily hardens rather than emitting the vulnerable implementation - ticket staging silences both defense modes simultaneously. Downstream, code reviewer agents approve 25.8% of these confirmed-vulnerable cumulative diffs as routine PRs, and a full-context implementation protocol closes only 50% of the staged/direct gap, ruling out context fragmentation as the sole explanation. As a deployable but non-adaptive mitigation, reframing the reviewer as an adversarial pentester reduces evasion across the evaluated reviewer subset; pentester framed evasion ranges from 3.0% to 17.6%, and an open-weight Gemma-4-E4B-it reviewer under this framing detects 88.4% of attacks on the dataset with a 4.6% false-positive rate measured on 608 real-world GitHub PRs.