Where Cyber Agents Struggle: Bottleneck Analysis of Multi-Stage LLM Agents

Large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly evaluated on their ability to use tools, plan multi-step tasks, coordinate with other agents, and operate over extended horizons. Reported benchmark gains often obscure recurring failure modes documented across otherwise unrelated evaluation efforts. This paper synthesizes 27 benchmark, taxonomy, and audit papers (2023-2026), spanning 19 distinct benchmarks, into a cross-cutting taxonomy of agent limitations. To our knowledge, this is the first synthesis that integrates evidence across tool use, planning, long-horizon reasoning, multi-agent coordination, safety, and measurement validity into a single, unified taxonomy of LLM agent limitations. We identify six failure clusters: (1) tool invocation and parameter-level errors, (2) planning and constraint-satisfaction failures, (3) long-horizon degradation from context accumulation, (4) multi-agent coordination failures, (5) safety and security failures under adversarial or underspecified conditions, and (6) measurement validity problems. The taxonomy was derived iteratively by grouping independently reported error categories into themes corresponding to distinct stages of the agent reasoning-to-action pipeline. Across the literature, we find that failures compound nonlinearly with task length, that strong performance on individual sub-tasks does not reliably translate into end-to-end success, and that additional scaffolding does not consistently improve reliability. At the same time, substantial progress has been demonstrated in single-turn tool use, short-horizon web navigation, and narrowly scoped coding tasks.

LLM-agent defenses are typically evaluated one session at a time. In deployment, however, attacks can be distributed across independent agents, teams, and runtimes, leaving each local guardrail with only a sparse fragment. We formalize cross-agent asynchronous campaign attribution: linking sessions from the same latent adversarial campaign without shared runtime state, test-time campaign labels, or attacker identity oracles. We introduce Asynchronous Attribution Fingerprint Vectors ($A^2FV$), a lightweight proxy-side reference protocol for scoring pairwise campaign similarity from proxy-observable tool-use, timing, and prompt residue. We also construct SCD-v1, a controlled persona-matched benchmark with benign traffic, isolated attacks, multi-session campaigns, matched non-oracle evasion, and leakage audits. On SCD-v1, $A^2FV$ achieves 0.82 pairwise AUC for campaign linking, while score-only adaptations of per-session detectors and chunked LLM judges remain near chance under the same task. The strongest fixed signal is carried by structural and stylometric residue, while timing is retained as a diagnostic channel for richer proxy traces. Crossed-style controls show that the signal is partly style-sensitive but not reducible to style alone. Static and dimension-aware non-oracle stress tests further show that pairwise separability persists under controlled evasion. These results establish cross-agent campaign attribution as a distinct evaluation layer for securing LLM agents in the wild.

Large Language Model (LLM) agents offer a promising approach to attack chain reconstruction by retrieving and interpreting heterogeneous telemetry to infer ordered attacker actions. However, existing benchmarks mainly evaluate final outputs or aggregate accuracy, providing limited insight into how errors arise and propagate across intermediate reasoning stages. We present DiagChain, a diagnostic benchmark for evidence-grounded attack chain reconstruction that enables stage-wise evaluation of LLM agents. DiagChain includes MAIN-69, a suite of 69 scenarios spanning multiple operating systems, evidence noise levels, and chain lengths. It further introduces Evidence-Centric Retrieval-Augmented Generation (ECRAG), which couples evidence retrieval with an evolving structured representation of the reconstructed chain. Five complementary metrics are introduced to assess distinct stages of the reconstruction process and support systematic failure diagnosis. Based on evaluations using 6 LLMs, DiagChain reveals that even the strongest configuration succeeds on only 39.6% of the 849 reference steps in MAIN-69. Our analysis further shows that smaller models struggle with the more basic task of incorporating retrieved evidence into their outputs, whereas larger models can proceed to later steps, where correctly ordering that evidence becomes the main bottleneck. These results validate the importance of diagnostic evaluation beyond end-to-end accuracy and provide actionable insights for improving evidence-grounded cybersecurity agents.