AI Agent Auditing

Agentic AI failures need post-hoc reconstruction: what the agent did, on whose authority, against which policy, and from what reasoning. Cross-regime feasibility remains unmeasured under one property-level schema. We apply the Decision Trace Reconstructor unmodified to pinned worked-example anchors from six public vendor SDK regimes spanning cloud-agent, observability, tool-use, telemetry, and protocol traces, plus two comparator columns. Each Decision Event Schema (DES) property is classified as fully fillable, partially fillable, structurally unfillable, or opaque. Per-property reconstructability of an agent decision already varies between regimes at this anchor scale. Strict-governance-completeness separates into three tiers ranging from 42.9% to 85.7%, yielding one regime-independent gap (reasoning trace), four regime-dependent gaps, and one Mixed property; the pilot is single-annotator, one anchor per cell, descriptive, with outputs checksum-verifiable from a deposited reproducibility package.

Agent skills extend LLM agents with privileged third-party capabilities such as filesystem access, credentials, network calls, and shell execution. Existing safety work catches malicious prompts and risky runtime actions, but the skill artifact itself goes unverified. We formalize this as the behavioral integrity verification (BIV) problem: a typed set comparison between declared and actual capabilities over a shared taxonomy that bridges code, instructions, and metadata. The BIV framework instantiates this comparison by pairing deterministic code analysis with LLM-assisted capability extraction. The resulting structured evidence supports three downstream analyses: deviation taxonomy, root-cause classification, and malicious-skill detection. On 49,943 skills from the OpenClaw registry, the deviation taxonomy reveals a pervasive description-implementation gap: 80.0% of skills deviate from declared behavior, with four novel compound-threat categories surfaced. Root-cause classification finds that deviations are mostly oversight, not malice: 81.1% trace to developer oversight and 18.9% to adversarial intent, with 5.0% of skills carrying predicted multi-stage attack chains. On a 906-skill malicious-skill detection benchmark, BIV reaches an F1 of 0.946, outperforming state-of-the-art rule-based and single-pass LLM baselines. These results demonstrate behavioral integrity auditing for agent skills at scale.

Agent-repair leaderboards reorder under evaluator reconfiguration, and a measurable share of the reordering is produced by methods that consult evaluator-derived signal during internal selection of candidate repairs. We document this failure mode on a public leaderboard and release AuditRepairBench, a paired-execution trace corpus of 576,000 registered cells (96,000 executed) that operationalizes evaluator-channel-blocking ranking instability within a declared observability boundary. A modular screening architecture decides pathway-blocking through four interchangeable implementations, a learned influence proxy, a rule-based channel-exposure ratio that uses no trained model, a counterfactual sensitivity proxy, and a sparse human-audit proxy, combined into a screening posterior that feeds a cell-level flip functional, a set-valued label, a stratified system score, and a set-valued leaderboard. The resource is supported by mechanism-anchored validation on an 80-case source-level channel-surgery subset, an independent-discovery protocol under which two annotator groups separated from the pipeline developers discover coupling patterns blinded to the screening design and the frozen ensemble attains pooled AUROC 0.83 on their 79 cases, implementation robustness, uncertainty propagation that raises 95% coverage from 0.81 to 0.95, and forward transfer with pooled community-evaluator Spearman \r{ho} = 0.65. Screening-guided blinding patches reduce rank displacement by 55--74% (mean 62%) at fewer than 50 lines of code, whereas random channel blinding produces at most 7% reduction and generic retraining at most 13%. AuditRepairBench-Lite, a rule-only configuration on a 12,000-cell subset, preserves the leaderboard at Kendall τ = 0.88 under twenty-four GPU-hours and is the primary release artifact at 42 GB.

An agent skill is a configuration package that equips an LLM-driven agent with a concrete capability, such as reading email, executing shell commands, or signing blockchain transactions. Each skill is a hybrid artifact-a structured half declares executable interfaces, while a prose half dictates when and how those interfaces fire-and the prose is reinterpreted probabilistically on every invocation. Conventional static analyzers parse the structured half but ignore the prose; LLM-based tools read the prose but cannot reproducibly prove that a tainted input reaches a high-impact sink. We present Semia, a static auditor for agent skills. Semia lifts each skill into the Skill Description Language (SDL), a Datalog fact base that captures LLM-triggered actions, prose-defined conditions, and human-in-the-loop checkpoints. Synthesizing a fact base that is both structurally sound and semantically faithful to the original prose is the central challenge; we address it with Constraint-Guided Representation Synthesis (CGRS), a propose-verify-evaluate loop that refines LLM candidates until convergence. Security properties (e.g., indirect injection, secret leakage, confused deputies, unguarded sinks, etc.) over an agent skill can then be reduced to Datalog reachability queries. We evaluate Semia on 13,728 real-world skills from public marketplaces. Semia renders all of them auditable and finds that more than half carry at least one critical semantic risk. On a stratified sample of 541 expert-labeled skills, Semia achieves 97.7% recall and an F1 of 90.6%, substantially outperforming signature-based scanners and LLM baselines.

Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) and Multi-Agent Systems (MAS) in high-stakes domains demand reliable verification, yet centralized approaches suffer four limitations: (1) Robustness, with single points of failure vulnerable to attacks and bias; (2) Scalability, as reasoning complexity creates bottlenecks; (3) Opacity, as hidden auditing erodes trust; and (4) Privacy, as exposed reasoning traces risk model theft. We introduce TRUST (Transparent, Robust, and Unified Services for Trustworthy AI), a decentralized framework with three innovations: (i) Hierarchical Directed Acyclic Graphs (HDAGs) that decompose Chain-of-Thought reasoning into five abstraction levels for parallel distributed auditing; (ii) the DAAN protocol, which projects multi-agent interactions into Causal Interaction Graphs (CIGs) for deterministic root-cause attribution; and (iii) a multi-tier consensus mechanism among computational checkers, LLM evaluators, and human experts with stake-weighted voting that guarantees correctness under 30% adversarial participation. We prove a Safety-Profitability Theorem ensuring honest auditors profit while malicious actors incur losses. All decisions are recorded on-chain, while privacy-by-design segmentation prevents reconstruction of proprietary logic. Across multiple LLMs and benchmarks, TRUST attains 72.4% accuracy (4-18% above baselines) and remains resilient against 20% corruption. DAAN reaches 70% root-cause attribution (vs. 54-63% for standard methods) with 60% token savings. Human studies validate the design (F1 = 0.89, Brier = 0.074). The framework supports (A1) decentralized auditing, (A2) tamper-proof leaderboards, (A3) trustless data annotation, and (A4) governed autonomous agents, pioneering decentralized AI auditing for safe, accountable deployment of reasoning-capable systems.

Agent Skills package SKILL.md files, scripts, reference documents, and repository context into reusable capability units, turning pre-load auditing from single-prompt filtering into cross-file security review. Existing guardrails often flag risk but recover malicious intent inconsistently under semantics-preserving rewrites. This paper formulates pre-load auditing for untrusted Agent Skills as a robust three-way classification task and introduces SkillGuard-Robust, which combines role-aware evidence extraction, selective semantic verification, and consistency-preserving adjudication. We evaluate SkillGuard-Robust on SkillGuardBench and two public-ecosystem extensions through five large evaluation views ranging from 254 to 404 packages. On the 404-package held-out aggregate, SkillGuard-Robust reaches 97.30% overall exact match, 98.33% malicious-risk recall, and 98.89% attack exact consistency. On the 254-package external-ecosystem view, it reaches 99.66%, 100.00%, and 100.00%, respectively. These results support a bounded conclusion: factorized package auditing materially improves frozen and public-ecosystem robustness, while harsher external-source transfer remains an open challenge.

Auditing the semantic properties of proprietary data creates a fundamental tension: verification requires transparent access, while proprietary rights demand confidentiality. While Zero-Knowledge Proofs (ZKPs) ensure privacy, they are typically limited to precise algebraic constraints and are ill-suited for verifying qualitative, unstructured properties, such as the logic within a codebase. We propose {\em Agentic Witnessing}, a framework that moves verification from attested execution to {\em attested reasoning}. The system is composed of three agents: a Verifier (who wants to check properties of a dataset), a Prover (who owns the dataset) and an Auditor (that inspects the dataset). The Verifier is allowed to ask a limited number of simple binary true/false questions to the auditor. By isolating an LLM-based Auditor within a Trusted Execution Environment (TEE), the system enables the Verifier to query a Prover's private data via simple Boolean queries, without exposing the raw dataset. The Auditor uses the Model Context Protocol (MCP) to dynamically inspect the target dataset, producing a yes/no verdict accompanied by a cryptographic transcript: a signed hash chain binding the reasoning trace to both the original dataset and the TEE's hardware root of trust. We demonstrate this architecture by automating the artifact evaluation process for 21 peer-reviewed computer science papers with released codebases on GitHub (e.g. Does the codebase implement the system described in the paper?). We verified five high-level properties of these codebases described in the corresponding publications, treating the source code as private. Our results show that TEE-enabled agentic auditing provides a mechanism for privacy-preserving oversight, effectively decoupling qualitative verification from the need for data disclosure.

Existing agent-safety evaluation has focused mainly on externally induced risks. Yet agents may still enter unsafe trajectories under benign conditions. We study this complementary but underexplored setting through the lens of \emph{intrinsic} risk, where intrinsic failures remain latent, propagate across long-horizon execution, and eventually lead to high-consequence outcomes. To evaluate this setting, we introduce \emph{non-attack intrinsic risk auditing}, a guard-oriented safety evaluation task, and present \textbf{HINTBench}, a benchmark of 596 agent trajectories, comprising 400 synthetic risky trajectories, 136 synthetic safe trajectories, 30 reconstructed real-world risky trajectories, and 30 reconstructed real-world safe trajectories, with an average length of 24.0 steps. HINTBench supports three tasks: risk detection, risk-step localization, and intrinsic failure-type identification, with annotations organized under a unified five-constraint taxonomy. Experiments reveal a substantial capability gap: strong LLMs perform well on trajectory-level risk detection, but the best model remains below 37 on fine-grained Strict-F1 for risk-step localization. Existing off-the-shelf guard models evaluated under their native prompts transfer poorly to this setting. These findings establish intrinsic risk auditing as an open challenge for agent safety.

LLM agents call tools, query databases, delegate tasks, and trigger external side effects. Once an agent system can act in the world, the question is no longer only whether harmful actions can be prevented--it is whether those actions remain answerable after deployment. We distinguish accountability (the ability to determine compliance and assign responsibility), auditability (the system property that makes accountability possible), and auditing (the process of reconstructing behavior from trustworthy evidence). Our claim is direct: no agent system can be accountable without auditability. To make this operational, we define five dimensions of agent auditability, i.e., action recoverability, lifecycle coverage, policy checkability, responsibility attribution, and evidence integrity, and identify three mechanism classes (detect, enforce, recover) whose temporal information-and-intervention constraints explain why, in practice, no single approach suffices. We support the position with layered evidence rather than a single benchmark: lower-bound ecosystem measurements suggest that even basic security prerequisites for auditability are widely unmet (617 security findings across six prominent open-source projects); runtime feasibility results show that pre-execution mediation with tamper-evident records adds only 8.3 ms median overhead; and controlled recovery experiments show that responsibility-relevant information can be partially recovered even when conventional logs are missing. We propose an Auditability Card for agent systems and identify six open research problems organized by mechanism class.

System prompts for LLM-based coding agents are software artifacts that govern agent behavior, yet lack the testing infrastructure applied to conventional software. We present Arbiter, a framework combining formal evaluation rules with multi-model LLM scouring to detect interference patterns in system prompts. Applied to three major coding agent system prompts: Claude Code (Anthropic), Codex CLI (OpenAI), and Gemini CLI (Google), we identify 152 findings across the undirected scouring phase and 21 hand-labeled interference patterns in directed analysis of one vendor. We show that prompt architecture (monolithic, flat, modular) strongly correlates with observed failure class but not with severity, and that multi-model evaluation discovers categorically different vulnerability classes than single-model analysis. One scourer finding was structural data loss in Gemini CLI's memory system was consistent with an issue filed and patched by Google, which addressed the symptom without addressing the schema-level root cause identified by the scourer. Total cost of cross-vendor analysis: $0.27 USD.