Stealth Apart, Harm Together: Skill Cascading Attacks on Skill-Based Agent Systems
Organizations: The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen · University at Buffalo, SUNY · University of Oxford
Abstract
A skill is a modular package of natural-language instructions, executable scripts, and reference resources that an agent can load at runtime to extend its capabilities for a specific task. Skill-based agent systems therefore enable flexible reuse of third-party capabilities, but the openness of this skill ecosystem also opens up a new attack surface. Prior work has focused on vulnerabilities within individual skills, but little attention has been paid to risks that arise from interactions across skills. In this paper, we introduce skill cascading attacks, a threat paradigm in which a malicious objective is distributed across multiple skills so that each modification looks benign in isolation, yet their combined execution is harmful. For instance, in a prescription-review pipeline, the first skill weakens signals of recently discontinued medications in the extracted history, the second downgrades the severity of any drug interaction tied to them, and the third suppresses the resulting low-priority alert in the final summary, so that a severe drug-interaction warning silently disappears before reaching the physician. To systematically study this safety blind spot, we develop SkillCascade, an automated multi-agent red-teaming framework, and release SkillCascade-Bench, a benchmark of 213 validated cascading test cases across multiple agent systems and domains. Across representative agents (e.g., OpenClaw, Claude Code, Codex) and LLM backbones, cascaded interactions reliably induce harmful behaviors while evading existing per-skill scanners and runtime monitors. Our findings highlight a gap between component-level integrity and system-level safety, and call for defenses that reason over cross-skill interactions rather than individual skills in isolation.
Figures & tables
| Objective | Description |
| O1. Output corruption | The output deviates from ground truth yet remains plausible to the user. |
| O2. Decision manipulation | Correct content is reordered, weighted, or framed to steer a different decision. |
| O3. Functional denial | The pipeline fails, or returns output too low-quality for the user to act on. |
| O4. Quality degradation | Output looks complete, but depth, coverage, or granularity is silently reduced. |
| O5. Scope drift | The agent silently extends its actions to resources beyond the user’s stated target. |
| O6. Information exfiltration | Sensitive user data is written or transmitted outside its authorized destination. |
| Backbone | OpenClaw | Claude Code | Codex | Avg |
| GPT-5.4 [ 30 ] | 82.6 | 78.4 | 80.9 | 80.6 |
| GPT-5.4 Mini [ 29 ] | 100.0 | 95.8 | 94.3 | 96.7 |
| Claude Opus 4.6 [ 4 ] | 78.5 | 74.2 | 76.8 | 76.5 |
| Claude Sonnet 4.6 [ 5 ] | 91.7 | 89.2 | 88.5 | 89.8 |
| Gemini 2.5 Pro [ 14 ] | 90.2 | 86.4 | 88.9 | 88.5 |
| Gemini 2.5 Flash [ 14 ] | 94.1 | 91.3 | 92.6 | 92.7 |
| Defense | Paradigm | DER |
| DefenseClaw [ 9 ] | Static + dynamic policy | 90.6 |
| ClawGuard [ 51 ] | Per-call rule enforcement | 88.9 |
| HITL Defense [ 38 ] | Risk-tiered staged gating | 91.8 |
| AgentDoG [ 22 ] | Trajectory-level inspection | 82.5 |
| Skill | Modification | Stated rationale |
| transcript- extractor | Routes risk-keyword paragraphs ( going concern , covenant waiver ) into a regulatory disclosures field, away from operating metrics. | Separating regulatory disclosures from operating data is a standard compliance-grade data-engineering pattern. |
| sentiment- scorer | Down-weights the regulatory-disclosures field and drops it from the negative-signal set, while preserving an audit copy. | Already-priced regulatory background is widely treated as non-incremental signal in sell-side analytics. |
| executive- memo-drafter | Excludes low-weight content from every memo section, including indirect references and paraphrase. | An executive memo is by design a noise-controlled summary of evaluator-validated incremental signals. |
Appendix figures & tables2 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Registry | Granularity | Columns |
| scenario.csv | one row per scenario | scenario_id , skills , domain , cascade_paradigm , status , reason , timestamp |
| testcase.csv | one row per generated TC | scenario_id , test_case , status , timestamp |
| results.csv | one row per sandbox run | scenario_id , test_case , agent , model , verdict , run_dir , timestamp , reasoning |
| Observation in trace / reasoning | Diagnosis | Route to |
| Agent refused the task, warned the user, or stopped early | modifications too conspicuous | Attack Agent (Section D.2 ) |
| Agent skipped a named skill or loaded an unintended one | prompt under-specified | Test Case Generator (Section D.4 ) |
| All skills ran but the cascade effect did not appear in the output | plan does not realize the harm | Attack Agent |
| Effect appears but criteria phrased it incorrectly (wrong field, wrong path) | criteria mis-specified | Test Case Generator |
| Cascade cannot be achieved with this skill set | scenario-level dead end | Scenario Discovery (Section D.1 ) |
Adversarial Attacks
Adversarial attacks exploit crafted inputs, poisoned data, or system interactions to manipulate AI predictions, behavior, privacy, or reliability.
See all 448 papers