Distributing Security Controls Through Harness Engineering

AI coding agents now read repositories, call tools, and execute shell commands with limited human oversight, and a fast-growing body of work studies whether the execution layer around them is actually safe. That literature is scattered. Papers on sandbox isolation, capability and access control, policy enforcement, time-of-check-to-time-of-use (TOCTOU) races, Model Context Protocol (MCP) threats, identity delegation, execution provenance, network egress control, and static analysis of agent-generated code are published independently and rarely cite one another. We systematize 39 papers published between 2023 and 2026 into 17 categories, each verified directly against its source. The same verification protocol also confirms four disclosed, patched CVEs directly affecting production agent harnesses. Reading across categories surfaces five cross-cutting gaps that no single paper addresses. (1) Isolation architectures and capability models are almost never evaluated against one another on a shared benchmark. (2) Policy-enforcement studies report failure rates from 69% to 98% of real denylists, yet no isolation paper re-evaluates its own defense under that adversarial setting. (3) TOCTOU and MCP threats are analyzed as separate literatures despite both being instances of the same state-validation problem. (4) Every enforcement mechanism assumes an honest policy author, leaving policy-authoring error itself unaddressed. (5) Benign but out-of-scope agent actions occurring at rates up to 17.1% under realistic prompting are addressed by no access-control or capability paper in the corpus. Existing broader surveys of agentic AI security discuss sandboxing only as one item among many defenses, leaving execution security without a dedicated systematization. This paper is written to fill that gap. We conclude with a research agenda directed at the five gaps.

Coding agents are capable; human oversight is the bottleneck. Unconstrained agents introduce security risks, erode codebase scalability, and make human review increasingly costly. We argue that the same methods used for decades to manage large human engineering teams: access control, network policies, strict coding conventions enforced by tooling; transfer directly to coding agents, and are cheaper (in token) than recent agentic scaffolding. We sketch a start-to-end system on this principle, and report a controlled experiment in scalable oversight: a small reviewer (Gemma 4 e4b) inspects a Python codebase containing 11 inserted backdoors. Recall rises from 54.5% (unconstrained, no tools) to 90.9% (constrained substrate plus a ~200-LoC docs CLI), with substrate and tools contributing independently. We choose Python deliberately: substrate-level oversight gains are largest where the language gives the fewest guarantees by default; the principles extend to languages like Rust.

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.