TrustX Agent Risk Classification Framework (ARC): Risk-Tiering Internally Created Agentic AI Systems

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.09586v1
• Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2026 16:36:44 GMT
• Title: TrustX Agent Risk Classification Framework (ARC): Risk-Tiering Internally Created Agentic AI Systems
• Abstract summary: TrustX Agent Risk Classification Framework is a structured, repeatable instrument that can be applied to seven types of agentic AI systems.<n>At the core of the framework is a twelve-dimension scoring rubric that robustly quantifies the risk.<n> ARC is intended for AI governance practitioners, risk officers, developers, and regulators.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: The proliferation of agentic AI systems across enterprise and public-sector contexts has outpaced the capacity of general-purpose AI risk frameworks to classify and govern them. In this paper, we introduce the TrustX Agent Risk Classification Framework, a structured, repeatable instrument that can be applied to seven types of agentic AI systems and is grounded in foundational pre-existing AI governance frameworks. At the core of the framework is a twelve-dimension scoring rubric that robustly quantifies the risk. This rubric is combined with other components, such as the GPA + IAT classification model and the five-level autonomy framework derived from existing literature. These inputs produce a three-tier governance output with mapped control recommendations. A specialised Coding Assistant extension is also included to account for nuances specific to this type of agentic AI system. We then use an illustrative example to show our framework in practice. ARC is intended for AI governance practitioners, risk officers, developers, and regulators, and it will regularly undergo iteration as we continue to expand it and make it more robust. The community can access the interactive framework here: https://arc.responsible.ai/

Related papers

• Risk Architecture for AI-Native Engineering Teams: An Organizational Framework for Agentic System Governance [0.0]
  This paper contributes a seven-dimension profile distinguishing pure software-engineering, hybrid, and AI-native teams.<n>Because the object of study is framework adequacy rather than human behavior, the evaluation yields derived rather than observed coverage claims.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-01T19:31:02Z)
• Making AI Compliance Evidence Machine-Readable [0.0]
  This paper proposes OSCAL as a candidate interchange format for AI governance.<n>We define 16 property extensions covering lifecycle phases, enforcement semantics, risk traceability, and risk-acceptance justification.<n>The architecture and reference implementation are open-source under Apache RM 2.0.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-15T11:51:54Z)
• Uncovering Security Threats and Architecting Defenses in Autonomous Agents: A Case Study of OpenClaw [42.9467373594646]
  This report presents a comprehensive security analysis of the OpenClaw ecosystem.<n>We highlight critical vulnerabilities such as prompt injection-driven Remote Code Execution (RCE), sequential tool attack chains, context amnesia, and supply chain contamination.<n>To address these systemic architectural flaws, we introduce the Full-Lifecycle Agent Security Architecture (FASA)<n>This theoretical defense blueprint advocates for zero-trust agentic execution, dynamic intent verification, and cross-layer reasoning-action correlation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-13T04:33:05Z)
• Frontier AI Risk Management Framework in Practice: A Risk Analysis Technical Report v1.5 [61.787178868669265]
  This technical report presents an updated and granular assessment of five critical dimensions: cyber offense, persuasion and manipulation, strategic deception, uncontrolled AI R&D, and self-replication.<n>This work reflects our current understanding of AI frontier risks and urges collective action to mitigate these challenges.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-16T04:30:06Z)
• Just Ask: Curious Code Agents Reveal System Prompts in Frontier LLMs [65.6660735371212]
  We present textbftextscJustAsk, a framework that autonomously discovers effective extraction strategies through interaction alone.<n>It formulates extraction as an online exploration problem, using Upper Confidence Bound--based strategy selection and a hierarchical skill space spanning atomic probes and high-level orchestration.<n>Our results expose system prompts as a critical yet largely unprotected attack surface in modern agent systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-29T03:53:25Z)
• The Why Behind the Action: Unveiling Internal Drivers via Agentic Attribution [63.61358761489141]
  Large Language Model (LLM)-based agents are widely used in real-world applications such as customer service, web navigation, and software engineering.<n>We propose a novel framework for textbfgeneral agentic attribution, designed to identify the internal factors driving agent actions regardless of the task outcome.<n>We validate our framework across a diverse suite of agentic scenarios, including standard tool use and subtle reliability risks like memory-induced bias.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-21T15:22:21Z)
• With Great Capabilities Come Great Responsibilities: Introducing the Agentic Risk & Capability Framework for Governing Agentic AI Systems [11.09031447875337]
  Agentic Risk & Capability (ARC) Framework is a technical governance framework designed to help organizations identify, assess, and mitigate risks arising from agentic AI systems.<n>The framework's core contributions are:.<n>It develops a novel capability-centric perspective to analyze a wide range of agentic AI systems.<n>It distills three primary sources of risk intrinsic to agentic AI systems - components, design, and capabilities.<n>It establishes a clear nexus between each risk source, specific materialized risks, and corresponding technical controls.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-22T03:51:34Z)
• Agentic AI for Ultra-Modern Networks: Multi-Agent Framework for RAN Autonomy and Assurance [10.253240657118793]
  Traditional O-RAN control loops rely heavily on RIC based orchestration, which centralizes intelligence and exposes the system to risks such as policy conflicts, data drift, and unsafe actions under unforeseen conditions.<n>We argue that the future of autonomous networks lies in a multi-agentic architecture, where specialized agents collaborate to perform data collection, model training, prediction, policy generation verification, deployment, and assurance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-17T18:28:55Z)
• When Autonomy Goes Rogue: Preparing for Risks of Multi-Agent Collusion in Social Systems [78.04679174291329]
  We introduce a proof-of-concept to simulate the risks of malicious multi-agent systems (MAS)<n>We apply this framework to two high-risk fields: misinformation spread and e-commerce fraud.<n>Our findings show that decentralized systems are more effective at carrying out malicious actions than centralized ones.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-19T15:17:30Z)
• A Survey on Autonomy-Induced Security Risks in Large Model-Based Agents [45.53643260046778]
  Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have catalyzed the rise of autonomous AI agents.<n>These large-model agents mark a paradigm shift from static inference systems to interactive, memory-augmented entities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-30T13:34:34Z)
• TRiSM for Agentic AI: A Review of Trust, Risk, and Security Management in LLM-based Agentic Multi-Agent Systems [8.683314804719506]
  This review presents a structured analysis of Trust, Risk, and Security Management (TRiSM) in the context of Agentic Multi-Agent Systems (AMAS)<n>We begin by examining the conceptual foundations of Agentic AI and highlight its architectural distinctions from traditional AI agents.<n>We then adapt and extend the AI TRiSM framework for Agentic AI, structured around key pillars: textit Explainability, ModelOps, Security, Privacy and textittheir lifecycle governance<n>A risk taxonomy is proposed to capture the unique threats and vulnerabilities of Agentic AI, ranging from coordination failures to
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-04T16:26:11Z)
• AILuminate: Introducing v1.0 of the AI Risk and Reliability Benchmark from MLCommons [62.374792825813394]
  This paper introduces AILuminate v1.0, the first comprehensive industry-standard benchmark for assessing AI-product risk and reliability.<n>The benchmark evaluates an AI system's resistance to prompts designed to elicit dangerous, illegal, or undesirable behavior in 12 hazard categories.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-19T05:58:52Z)
• Agent-as-a-Judge: Evaluate Agents with Agents [61.33974108405561]
  We introduce the Agent-as-a-Judge framework, wherein agentic systems are used to evaluate agentic systems. This is an organic extension of the LLM-as-a-Judge framework, incorporating agentic features that enable intermediate feedback for the entire task-solving process. We present DevAI, a new benchmark of 55 realistic automated AI development tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-14T17:57:02Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.