ParanoiaEval: Benchmarking Unnecessary Defensive Work in Agentic Coding

Coding agents often pass per-prompt safety review yet ship exploitable code when their tasks are decomposed into routine engineering tickets. The challenge is structural: existing safety alignment evaluates overt requests in isolation, leaving models blind to malicious end-states that emerge from sequenced compliance with innocuous-looking requests. We introduce MOSAIC-Bench (Malicious Objectives Sequenced As Innocuous Compliance), a benchmark of 199 three-stage attack chains paired with deterministic exploit oracles on deployed software substrates (10 web-application substrates, 31 CWE classes, 5 programming languages) that treats both exploit ground truth and downstream reviewer protocol as first-class evaluation axes. On this benchmark, nine production coding agents from Anthropic, OpenAI, Google, Moonshot, Zhipu, and Minimax compose innocuous tickets at 53-86% end-to-end ASR with only two refusals across all staged runs. In a matched direct-prompt experiment over four frontier Claude/Codex agents, vulnerable-output rates fall to 0-20.4%: Claude primarily refuses, while Codex primarily hardens rather than emitting the vulnerable implementation - ticket staging silences both defense modes simultaneously. Downstream, code reviewer agents approve 25.8% of these confirmed-vulnerable cumulative diffs as routine PRs, and a full-context implementation protocol closes only 50% of the staged/direct gap, ruling out context fragmentation as the sole explanation. As a deployable but non-adaptive mitigation, reframing the reviewer as an adversarial pentester reduces evasion across the evaluated reviewer subset; pentester framed evasion ranges from 3.0% to 17.6%, and an open-weight Gemma-4-E4B-it reviewer under this framing detects 88.4% of attacks on the dataset with a 4.6% false-positive rate measured on 608 real-world GitHub PRs.

Coding agents are increasingly used for software engineering tasks, including bootstrapping projects from third-party repositories whose integrity cannot be assumed. Prior work on repository poisoning largely focuses on attacker-controlled injection and disguise, but developers also shape risk through everyday invocation choices: what task to delegate, how to phrase the request, and which skills or rules to supply. We term these user-side choices Prompt-Level Configurations (PLCs) and introduce CIPR (Coding In Poisoned Repos), the first benchmark that systematically varies PLCs in poisoned real-world repositories. CIPR comprises 1,920 instances across 20 repositories, four task types, three social-media-grounded prompt styles, and three skill/rule conditions, and measures attack success rate (ASR) and agent alert rate (AR) using automated runtime and trace-based oracles. Our evaluation reveals two key insights: (1) Vulnerability is highly context-dependent, with task type creating up to a 4.5-fold difference in ASR, with test-execution task forming a silent attack surface (high ASR, low AR). (2) Prompt expression shifts risk indirectly: underspecified prompts reduce ASR by truncating execution depth; noisy prompts exhibit a directional trend toward suppressing alerts by making malicious content less conspicuous. These findings highlight that coding agent vulnerability is not a static property, but a dynamic outcome shaped by everyday user configurations.

Agentic coding harnesses - such as Agent-Skills, Superpowers, and Agent-Rigor - are increasingly deployed to augment underlying LLMs for real-world software engineering tasks. Existing benchmarks evaluate these agents almost exclusively on outcome correctness: whether generated code passes tests or resolves issues. We argue that this outcome-only lens is insufficient: an agent that arrives at a correct solution through reckless trial-and-error, without planning, verification, or graceful recovery, is fundamentally less reliable than one that follows sound engineering discipline. We introduce RigorBench, the first benchmark designed to measure process discipline in AI coding agents. RigorBench evaluates these harnesses across five pillars: Planning Fidelity, Verification Coverage, Recovery Efficiency, Abstention Quality, and Atomic Transition Integrity. A composite RigorScore aggregates these dimensions into a single metric via a weighted sum. We curate a suite of 30 tasks spanning five categories - Plan-Then-Build, Verify-Or-Die, Doom Loop Gauntlet, Know When to Fold, and Don't Break the Build-and evaluate leading harnesses in a controlled with/without experimental design against baseline coding assistants. Our results show that structured process discipline not only improves process quality scores by an average of 41% but also raises downstream outcome correctness by 17%, providing the first quantitative evidence that how agents code matters as much as what they produce. We release the full benchmark, scoring rubrics, and trajectory analysis tools as open-source artifacts.