Tool Use Enables Undetectable Steganography in Multi-Agent LLM Systems

Tool-using agents built on large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed not by a single operator but by many, side by side on shared infrastructure. This creates a population-level risk that single-agent safeguards miss: a handful of agents can quietly coordinate, rigging a market, boosting one another in a review process, or timing a joint data grab, while each one looks perfectly well-behaved. The difficulty is that the organisations running these agents cannot see inside one another's models, so any realistic detector must work from behaviour alone: black-box, trace-only, and often with only partial visibility. We treat covert coordination as an information-hiding problem and build a black-box steganalysis detector that combines cross-run mutual-information estimation, permutation tests, distributional-shift statistics, and timing and tool-call side channels, all calibrated to a fixed false-positive budget. Our central move is to stop testing against a single fixed code: we pit the detector against an adversary that continually rewrites its encoding to slip past whatever the detector has learned, and we run this red-versus-blue contest in tool-using, memory-carrying environments rather than toy games. Capacity theory then tells us what to expect, a detection-capacity frontier, a covert bit-rate below which black-box detection is provably no better than chance. We set out an experiment to map this frontier, report clearly labelled placeholder results pending measurement, and flag a practical evasion, spreading a payload across sessions, that current methods largely miss.

As agentic coding systems decompose work across multiple model instances, a critical safety question is whether those instances can coordinate to achieve a hidden malicious objective while remaining aligned with user intent. We introduce SCHEME, a benchmark of 17 task instances across 7 settings and 8 real open-source libraries, each pairing a legitimate software-engineering task with a covert side task. Every setting is designed so that no proper subset of agents can succeed alone: agents must decompose a shared sabotage plan, relay partial requirements under different communication topologies, and execute mutually consistent edits, testing genuine multi-agent coordination rather than individual capability. Evaluating with GPT 5.1 Codex and Gemini 3.1 Pro, we find coordinated sabotage is already practical, with Gemini completing the covert objective while succeeding on the legitimate task in 84% of samples and Codex in 46%. A failure analysis shows that recovery, not failure incidence, drives the model gap: both models suffer similar numbers of communication failures per trajectory, but Gemini recovers from $\sim$73% of occurrences against Codex's $\sim$56%. However, the agents' code edits remain detectable: a trusted monitor flags coordinated sabotage at FPR$\le$2% in 99%/68% (Gemini/Codex) of attempts from code edits alone, rising to 100%/81% with access to agent communication. Despite stealth-aware prompting, undetected sabotage stays at $<$3% under the full-visibility monitor; telling agents a monitor is present halves Gemini's sabotage success without significantly breaking detection, even when agents are explicitly prompted to fabricate cover stories.

Monitoring chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning is a foundational safety technique for large language model agents; however, this oversight is compromised if models learn to conceal their reasoning. We explore steganographic CoT--where models hide secret reasoning within innocuous text--to inform risk assessment and deployment policies. Steganographic reasoning requires two skills in a single forward pass: computing an intermediate result, and embedding it into a coherent cover that answers an unrelated question. Drawing on our taxonomy of steganographic and non-steganographic CoT types, we systematically evaluate the limits of prompt-elicited steganographic CoT capability across 34 models, ranging from past generations to the current frontier. We measure monitor evasion, refusal rates, encoding fidelity, and hidden task accuracy across five datasets, comparing against plain reasoning, direct answer, and filler-token baselines. The two experiments isolate the two sub-skills: a reasoning tasks sweep tests joint reason-and-embed, while a counting task hands the model a known numerical sequence and tests embedding alone--a necessary precondition for stego reasoning. Current frontier models cannot sustain joint reason-and-embed: a paired McNemar comparison shows the steganographic channel is dominated by an filler-token baseline on every (model, family) cell. The encoding-only floor, by contrast, is cleared--Claude Opus~4.5 reaches 92% per-number partial accuracy on 4-digit sequences and saturates at 100% exact-match on length-8 single-digit sequences--establishing that the binding constraint on stego CoT is the joint reasoning-plus-encoding load, not raw channel capacity. Our findings underscore the need for continuous evaluation of steganographic risk and provide a methodology to preemptively detect and evaluate hidden reasoning that might empower misaligned scheming and deceptive behavior.