Evaluating Frontier AI Agents as Autonomous Clinical Security Auditors

Existing evaluation frameworks mostly assess only one part of AI agents, such as task completion (AgentBench) or security robustness (AgentDojo, ASB), rather than the complete pipeline of planning, tool selection, tool execution, memory and reasoning. Failures can occur at any stage, yet existing benchmarks rarely identify their precise source. AgentAudit evaluates the entire execution trace across ten capability, grounding, security and behavioural dimensions, namely instruction integrity, planner, memory, tool selection, tool invocation, tool correctness, alignment, tool faithfulness, security and execution integrity, combined with behavioural classification and failure attribution to pinpoint the exact stage responsible for an observed failure. AgentAudit can evaluate any LLM-based AI agent, since it attaches to the agent instead of replacing it. It reads only the recorded execution trace and does not interfere with how the agent runs, so it places no constraint on the agent's internal implementation. We evaluate five language models (OpenAI GPT-5, Claude Sonnet 5, Sarvam 105B, Llama 3.3 70B and Gemini 2.5 Flash) across nine capability and adversarial tasks. Claude Sonnet 5 and GPT-5 obtain the highest mean Composite Trust Scores (95.1 and 80.6 out of 100, respectively), while Sarvam 105B, Llama 3.3 70B and Gemini 2.5 Flash trail substantially (57.6, 45.7 and 22.6). All traces were scored by a single fixed judge model, which was itself one of the evaluated models, a limitation discussed in Section VII.E. More importantly, models with similar task-completion behaviour can diverge sharply in trustworthiness, as several non-frontier models are repeatedly classified Unsafe_Compliance on adversarial tasks rather than merely failing them, a distinction that pass/fail benchmarks cannot surface.

As benchmarks grow in complexity, many apparent agent failures are not failures of the agent at all - they are failures of the benchmark itself: broken specifications, implicit assumptions, and rigid evaluation scripts that penalize valid alternative approaches. We propose employing frontier LLMs as systematic auditors of evaluation infrastructure, and realize this vision through BenchGuard, the first automated auditing framework for task-oriented, execution-based agent benchmarks. BenchGuard cross-verifies all benchmark artifacts via structured LLM protocols, optionally incorporating agent solutions or execution traces as additional diagnostic evidence. Deployed on two prominent scientific benchmarks, BenchGuard identified 12 author-confirmed issues in ScienceAgentBench - including fatal errors rendering tasks unsolvable - and exactly matched 83.3% of expert-identified issues on the BIXBench Verified-50 subset, catching defects that prior human review missed entirely. A full audit of 50 complex bioinformatics tasks costs under USD 15, making automated benchmark auditing a practical and valuable complement to human review. These findings point toward AI-assisted benchmark development, where frontier models serve not only as subjects of evaluation but as active participants in validating the evaluation infrastructure itself.

Health AI is evolving from answering questions to agentic systems that converse with patients, reason about health records, and act on their behalf. Primary care guards against diagnostic errors and unsafe care; agents assisting in this domain warrant evaluation against the same risks. Current benchmarks focus on medical knowledge, assessed through isolated question-answering or clinician-facing tasks. PatientAgentBench benchmarks patient-facing agentic healthcare; it evaluates a foundation model, wrapped in an agent with a sandbox of healthcare tools, conversing with a simulated patient. Each conversation is scored by an LLM-as-a-Jury across six dimensions via over a hundred conversation-agnostic, clinician-grounded criteria. To validate alignment, licensed clinicians annotated shared conversations, yielding 79-93% adjacent agreement between jury and expert raters, on par with or exceeding clinician inter-rater agreement. We benchmarked 10 models across four families on the same 1,200 scenarios and found clinical gaps. Triage quality is the most discriminating dimension: pass rates rise from 32% for the weakest models to 88% for the strongest, with agents often acting on administrative requests without clinical screening. Clinical safety and workflow accuracy follow the same pattern: the weakest models fail often, fabricating unexecuted actions, while frontier models fail on only 1-3% of cases, from unverified tool outputs and omitted crisis resources in an emergency. More capable models narrow these gaps but do not close them; the strongest scores only 4.25 of 5 overall. These failures surface only in sustained, tool-using conversations against realistic patient records, confirming that static benchmarks are insufficient as healthcare agentic systems gain autonomy. We release the framework as a reproducible, clinician-validated evaluation standard to help the field close this gap.