Prompt-Injection Probes Learn the Conversation, Not Just the Injection

LLM agents increasingly rely on activation probes as runtime monitors for prompt injection, jailbreaks, and unsafe requests, reading the model's own hidden state to catch a harmful input before the agent acts on it. A cheap, increasingly common move, borrowed from LLM-as-judge prompting, is to append a short classification instruction after the user's turn and read the probe at that point, to sharpen it: the instruction asks the model to represent the incoming request as a class, concentrating the signal the probe must separate, at negligible serving cost. But does the wording of that suffix matter, and does its benefit hold in the wild, on attack types the probe never saw in training, the regime a deployed monitor faces? We test this with a controlled ladder of post-user suffixes under strict leave-one-dataset-out (LODO) evaluation across 13 safety benchmarks (jailbreak, injection, and benign chat) and three open-weight model families (Llama-3.1-8B, Qwen3.5-9B, Gemma-4-12B). On a single-position probe, a classification suffix consistently improves out-of-distribution detection over no suffix (up to ~4 AUC points); yet which suffix matters: prompting the model to classify the input, even into content-free labels, reliably wins; an off-topic or merely-attentive suffix helps little. The gain comes from the classification format, not the named criterion: a content-free suffix matches the real malicious/benign one, with the criterion adding precision only at strict thresholds. This is not an artifact of the single-position read: the benefit carries to the multi-position pooling probes used in production (attention, multi-max, MLP), though the best-performing suffix there is readout-dependent. Served through a KV-cache fork, it is a cheap drop-in for any activation-probe monitor, though not an automatic win: which suffix helps, and by how much, depends on the model and the readout.

LLMs see the world as a single stream of text, partitioned into roles like <user> or <tool>. We trace prompt injection to role confusion: models perceive the source of text from how it sounds, not its labeled role. A command hidden in a webpage hijacks an agent simply because it sounds like <user> text, despite its <tool> label. We design role probes to measure how LLMs internally perceive "who is speaking," and find that injected text occupies the same representational space as the trusted role it imitates. We demonstrate this with CoT Forgery, a zero-shot attack that injects fabricated reasoning into user prompts and tool outputs. Models mistake the forgery for their own thoughts, yielding 60% attack success against frontier models with near-zero baselines. Strikingly, the degree of role confusion predicts attack success before a single token is generated. This mechanism generalizes beyond CoT Forgery to standard agent prompt injections, revealing prompt injection as a measurable consequence of role perception. To the model, sounding like a role is indistinguishable from being one. Project page and writeup: https://role-confusion.github.io

LLM agents increasingly screen tool outputs with small prompt-injection detectors, and teams choose among detectors by their scores on public benchmarks. We ask whether those scores predict how a detector behaves inside an agent. We replay the ground-truth tool calls of two agent benchmarks, AgentDojo and tau-bench, without an LLM to obtain tool outputs that are benign by construction, label injected outputs by differential replay, and evaluate fifteen detectors, including Meta's Prompt Guard 2, and two task-aware LLM judges on these outputs and on the BIPIA benchmark. Detection rankings transfer poorly between benchmarks: the best detector on BIPIA catches 2% of AgentDojo injections at a 1% false-positive rate, and a detector that catches 72% of AgentDojo injections catches 15% on tau-bench. False-positive rates on tool outputs, which range from none to over 90%, do transfer between the two agent benchmarks. Where training data is public, the form of the training inputs explains the results. The BIPIA leader was trained on full BIPIA inputs, but having seen InjecAgent's attack strings as short prompts does not help it find them inside tool outputs; the best detector on both agent benchmarks shares no data with any benchmark and was trained on agent-style inputs. Evaluations meant to inform deployment should use the agent's own tool outputs, report detection at a low false-positive rate, and audit what the detector was trained on.