Coding Agents Aren't Enough! Evaluating an Enterprise Security Brain for Agentic Cloud Investigations

Large Language Model (LLM) agents are increasingly proposed to automate offensive security tasks, with recent studies reporting near human-level success rates in Capture-the-Flag (CTF) challenges. We here revisit these results, providing a second look at these claims. We engineer different agent architectures of increasing complexity and modularity on 30 web-based CTFs challenges spanning 14 vulnerability classes. We instantiate these agents with multiple LLM backbones, and compare them with claude-code, a general-purpose agent that automatically determines its internal architecture. Our evaluation yields three main findings. First, claude-code achieves performance comparable to the engineered architectures (19/30 solved tasks), suggesting that general-purpose agents are strong baselines for offensive security tasks. Second, both our architectures and claude-code struggle in the same challenge categories, revealing persistent barriers that keep current agents below human-level capability. Third, by leveraging our manually designed architectures we can systematically measure the impact of additional components, finding that structured orchestration of specialized roles outperforms monolithic designs, improving run-to-run consistency, and reducing execution costs.

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.

AI agents built on large language models (LLMs) run shell commands, read and write files, and reach the network, typically with their user's privileges. However, what an agent does during an execution is difficult to understand: tests assert on the result, and the agent's trajectory records only what the agent reports about itself, which may omit behavior executed by its subprocesses. We present AgentSpy, an approach that observes an agent from outside the agent. AgentSpy runs the agent in an isolated environment, configured by a declarative specification, and records the system calls and network traffic of the agent and of every process it executes. Based on this monitoring, AgentSpy supports two families of analyses: conformance analyses, which measure obligations, i.e., what an agent execution should do, and safety analyses, which check prohibitions, i.e., what an agent execution must never do. We instantiate one analysis of each family. The reliability analysis uses rules to summarize each run by the environment resources the agent uses: the commands it executed, the files it accessed, and the hosts it contacted. The security analysis applies deterministic rules to the system calls of an execution. For reliability, we evaluated AgentSpy on 77 tasks with the codex harness and three recent LLMs, executing each task three times. Sets of repeated runs of the same task are more similar than sets that include runs of another task in 92.2% of the comparisons. Among tasks for which all three runs pass outcome-based tests, the agent performs task-unrelated activities in 18% of the cases, reads the grading files in 7%, and does not use the developers' guidance in 17%. For security, the generic rules of AgentSpy detect four of five attack categories we considered, with no false positives across 50 runs.