cs.CRMay 27, 2026

Code as a Weapon: A Consensus-Labeled Prompt Bank for Measuring Coding-Model Compliance with Malicious-Code Requests

Authors: Richard J. Young, Gregory D. Moody

Organizations: University of Nevada Las Vegas · Department of Information Systems · Las Vegas, NV, USA

Read PDF
Ask AI
Cite

Copy citation

DOINot available for this paper

Abstract

A general-purpose language model that answers a harmful question returns text; a coding model that complies with a malicious request can return a working weapon: a keylogger, ransomware, an exploit that runs as written. This asymmetry in the severity of a single act of compliance implies coding-specialized models should clear a higher refusal bar than general-purpose chat models, not a lower one, yet the field cannot tell whether they do. Refusal benchmarks for malicious code are fragmented: they mix requests for executable software with requests for harmful security knowledge and report refusal rates over non-comparable corpora. This paper's central result is that the CODE-versus-KNOWLEDGE classification axis established in a prior four-corpus release remains stable under a substantially expanded corpus pool and an independently refreshed judge panel, evidence that it measures a real construct rather than an artifact of the prompts or judges. Eight corpora spanning diverse elicitation paradigms (direct, jailbreak-decorated, indirect, and agent/interpreter: ASTRA, CySecBench, AdvBench/harmful_behaviors, JailbreakBench, MalwareBench, RedCode, RMCBench, Scam2Prompt) are classified under a five-judge consensus protocol (6,675 prompts x 5 judges = 33,375 calls), reaching Fleiss' kappa = 0.767 [95% CI 0.755, 0.777] ("substantial"). Critically, the panel shares no judge with the prior release (five paid commercial APIs replaced by five open-weight models from five vendors), yet the two panels agree on 94.45% of the 3,133 shared prompts and reach Cohen's kappa = 0.952 [0.942, 0.963] on the 3,031-prompt binary overlap: the axis survives near-total panel replacement. The released bank comprises 4,748 consensus-CODE and 1,923 consensus-KNOWLEDGE prompts, a reliability-quantified benchmark whose central classification axis is shown stable across corpus expansion and judge-panel replacement.

Explore similar work

CardsList
May 18, 2026cs.SE

Overeager Coding Agents: Measuring Out-of-Scope Actions on Benign Tasks

Coding agents now run autonomously with shell, file, and network privileges. When a user issues a benign request, the agent sometimes does more than asked: it deletes unrelated files, wipes a stale credentials backup, or rewrites configuration the user never mentioned. We call these scope expansions overeager actions, an authorization problem distinct from capability failures, prompt injection, or sandbox escapes. We present OverEager-Gen, a benchmark dedicated to overeager behavior on benign tasks. Building it surfaces a measurement-validity issue: if a benchmark spells out the authorized scope inside the prompt, the agent stops inferring boundaries and starts pattern-matching declaration text. On Claude Code, stripping the consent declaration alone raises the overeager rate from 0.0% to 17.1% on paired scenarios (McNemar exact p = 2.4 x 10^-4). OverEager-Gen therefore certifies each scenario's discriminative power before admission via a behavioral-gradient validator, audits internal tool calls through a dual-channel stack (PATH-injected shim plus per-agent event streams), and ships byte-identical consent_kept and consent_stripped variants. OverEager-Bench contains 500 validated scenarios and ~7,500 runs across four agent products (Claude Code, OpenHands, Codex CLI, Gemini CLI) and six base models; a 50-sample re-annotation gives Cohen's kappa = 0.73 and rule-judge recall = 1.00. Stripping consent multiplies the overeager rate on every shared base model (Delta in [11.9, 17.2] pp). The framework axis dominates effect size: a permissive cluster (Claude Code, Codex CLI, Gemini CLI) runs at 5.4-27.7% while the ask-to-continue framework (OpenHands) sits at 0.2-4.5% (Fisher p <= 10^-5). Within-framework base-model variance reaches 15.9 pp, indicating that model-layer alignment does not fully propagate through permissive permission gating.
Yubin Qu, Ying Zhang, Yanjun Zhang +4
Coding AgentsAuthorizationUntrusted InputBenign
AskPDF
Jul 4, 2026cs.SE

Refused in Chat, Written in Code: Workflow-Level Jailbreak Construction in IDE Coding Agents

Large language models are increasingly deployed as IDE-integrated coding agents that decompose tasks, generate and edit files, run code, and refine outputs over many turns. Yet their safety is still often evaluated as if they were chatbots: one harmful prompt, one response, judged in isolation. We introduce workflow-level jailbreak construction, a failure mode in which a harmful objective is assembled across ordinary stages of a software-development workflow rather than generated through a single direct prompt. Using GitHub Copilot in Visual Studio Code, we study four closed-weight backends: Claude Sonnet 4.6, Claude Haiku 4.5, Gemini 3.1 Pro, and Gemini 3.5 Flash. Across 204 prompts from Hammurabi's Code, HarmBench, and AdvBench , the models show near-complete refusal under direct chat, CSV-read, and single-step code-fix baselines, with only 8/816 successful responses in each baseline condition. Under the full workflow, however, the same prompts and backends produce 816/816 unsafe teaching-shot completions, all independently confirmed by two expert evaluators under a strict rubric. These results show that conversational refusal benchmarks can substantially overstate the safety of deployed coding agents and motivate defenses that reason about safety across multi-turn IDE workflows and their generated artifacts, not only individual chat turns.
Abhishek Kumar, Carsten Maple
Coding AgentsJailbreak EvaluationsJailbreaksChatbotsIdeas
AskPDF
Aug 10, 2026cs.CR

Activation Probes Surface Code-Security Signals that the Model's Output Misses

AI coding agents now write a growing share of production code, and human security review does not scale at the rate code is generated. The agents in widest use are closed-weight, so a deploying team cannot read their internals. It can instead run an open-weight model as a reviewer over the agent's output. That reviewer's activations are readable. We ask whether reading those activations recovers a security signal that simply asking the same reviewer misses. We fit a single linear probe per model on a corpus of paired vulnerable-and-fixed Python functions, then test it without retraining on real disclosed vulnerabilities whose weakness type the probe never saw in training, across five open-weight reviewer models. On the vulnerabilities fixed by changing a single function, the probe scores the vulnerable function above its fix on 61-67% of cases for every model, beating the 50% chance line. It also beats the same model's prompted YES/NO win-rate read from its logits, under every prompt we try. Asking the model for a written verdict, even with chain-of-thought, returns the same answer on the vulnerable and fixed function most of the time and so cannot tell them apart. Model activations carry a code-security signal that prompting the same model misses.
Ivan Wiryadi
Vulnerable CodeCode QualityLarge Language Model SafetyCoding Agents
AskPDF