AgentAudit: An Open, Extensible Framework for Full-Lifecycle Trust Evaluation of AI Agents

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2609.09875v1
• Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2026 08:29:16 GMT
• Title: AgentAudit: An Open, Extensible Framework for Full-Lifecycle Trust Evaluation of AI Agents
• Abstract summary: AgentAudit evaluates the entire execution trace across ten capability, grounding, security and behavioural dimensions.<n>It reads only the recorded execution trace and does not interfere with how the agent runs.<n>We evaluate five language models (OpenAI GPT-5, Claude Sonnet 5, Sarvam 105B, Llama 3.3 70B and Gemini 2.5 Flash) across nine capability and adversarial tasks.
• Score: 2.8000808592516293
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Existing evaluation frameworks mostly assess only one part of AI agents, such as task completion (AgentBench) or security robustness (AgentDojo, ASB), rather than the complete pipeline of planning, tool selection, tool execution, memory and reasoning. Failures can occur at any stage, yet existing benchmarks rarely identify their precise source. AgentAudit evaluates the entire execution trace across ten capability, grounding, security and behavioural dimensions, namely instruction integrity, planner, memory, tool selection, tool invocation, tool correctness, alignment, tool faithfulness, security and execution integrity, combined with behavioural classification and failure attribution to pinpoint the exact stage responsible for an observed failure. AgentAudit can evaluate any LLM-based AI agent, since it attaches to the agent instead of replacing it. It reads only the recorded execution trace and does not interfere with how the agent runs, so it places no constraint on the agent's internal implementation. We evaluate five language models (OpenAI GPT-5, Claude Sonnet 5, Sarvam 105B, Llama 3.3 70B and Gemini 2.5 Flash) across nine capability and adversarial tasks. Claude Sonnet 5 and GPT-5 obtain the highest mean Composite Trust Scores (95.1 and 80.6 out of 100, respectively), while Sarvam 105B, Llama 3.3 70B and Gemini 2.5 Flash trail substantially (57.6, 45.7 and 22.6). All traces were scored by a single fixed judge model, which was itself one of the evaluated models, a limitation discussed in Section VII.E. More importantly, models with similar task-completion behaviour can diverge sharply in trustworthiness, as several non-frontier models are repeatedly classified Unsafe_Compliance on adversarial tasks rather than merely failing them, a distinction that pass/fail benchmarks cannot surface.

Related papers

• ROPE: Routed Origin Policy Enforcement against Indirect Prompt Injection [61.4148196085256]
  We present ROPE (Routed Origin Policy Enforcement), which is anchored in a structural notion of trust.<n>Our approach admits two provable guarantees: 1) at every step of a trajectory, no value whose only origin is attacker-writable content reaches an origin-guarded parameter, and 2) no rewording of an injection changes an admission decision.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-27T01:22:14Z)
• ADeptS-Bench: Measuring the Trustworthiness of Computer Use Agents Across Devices [48.36933831982682]
  We introduce ADeptS-Bench, a trustworthiness benchmark grounded in the ADEPTS capability framework.<n>The Safety stream provides paired benign/malicious tasks with threats embedded in the visual interface.<n>The Disambiguation stream evaluates whether agents seek clarification when intent is ambiguous.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-25T23:21:57Z)
• ClawProBench: Trace-Aware Evaluation of AI Agents with Runtime Coverage and Frozen Workplace-Style Holdouts [0.0]
  Agent benchmarks often evaluate only final answers even when agents run on stateful runtimes.<n>We present ClawProBench, a trace-aware benchmark for runtime-native agent evaluation instantiated on OpenClaw.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-23T17:09:02Z)
• AgentAbstain: Do LLM Agents Know When Not to Act? [19.223843408018997]
  Existing evaluations mostly focus on task success rather than whether agents know when to abstain.<n>We present the first systematic evaluation framework for agentic abstention: the calibrated ability of tool-using LLM agents to recognize when not to act.<n>AgentAbstain is a paired-task benchmark built on an agent-native taxonomy of 8 abstention scenarios across pre-execution reasoning and runtime discovery.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-11T00:57:36Z)
• The Meta-Agent Challenge: Are Current Agents Capable of Autonomous Agent Development? [80.24951682268332]
  We introduce the Meta-Agent Challenge (MAC), an evaluation framework designed to test the capacity of frontier models for autonomous agent development.<n>To ensure evaluation integrity, this framework is secured by multi-layer defenses against reward hacking.<n>We demonstrate that meta-agents rarely match human-engineered baseline policies, and the few that do are dominated by proprietary frontier models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-03T04:58:17Z)
• ClawForge: Generating Executable Interactive Benchmarks for Command-Line Agents [59.626170560327274]
  We present textbfClawForge, a generator-backed benchmark framework for executable command-line categories under state conflict.<n>We instantiate this framework as the ClawForge-Bench (17 scenarios, 6 ability categories)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-13T21:34:08Z)
• AgentTrust: Runtime Safety Evaluation and Interception for AI Agent Tool Use [2.9991161518367875]
  AgentTrust intercepts agent tool calls before execution and returns a structured verdict: allow, warn, block, or review.<n>We release a 300-scenario benchmark across six risk categories and an additional 630 independently constructed real-world adversarial scenarios.<n>On the 630-second benchmark, evaluated under a patched ruleset, AgentTrust achieves 96.7% verdict accuracy, including about 93% on shell-obfuscated payloads.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-06T11:38:16Z)
• AgentProcessBench: Diagnosing Step-Level Process Quality in Tool-Using Agents [50.481033105867205]
  We introduce AgentProcessBench, the first benchmark dedicated to evaluating step-level effectiveness in realistic, tool-augmented trajectories.<n>The benchmark comprises 1,000 diverse trajectories and 8,509 human-labeled step annotations with 89.1% inter-annotator agreement.<n>It features a ternary labeling scheme to capture exploration and an error propagation rule to reduce labeling ambiguity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-15T16:13:58Z)
• Governing Dynamic Capabilities: Cryptographic Binding and Reproducibility Verification for AI Agent Tool Use [0.0]
  No existing security layer verifies what an AI agent can do, whether it executed what it claims, or what happened in a multi-agent interaction.<n>Existing frameworks conflate the two, enabling silent capability escalation and leaving interactions without verifiable provenance.<n>We derive three Agent Governance Requirements: capability integrity (G1), behavioral verifiability (G2), and interaction auditability (G3)<n>We validate with two crypto-agnostic instantiations -- basic (Ed25519, SHA-256; 97 us verify) and enhanced (BBS+ selective disclosure, Groth16 DV-SNARK; 13.8 ms)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-15T11:46:57Z)
• Re-Evaluating EVMBench: Are AI Agents Ready for Smart Contract Security? [10.248746359119625]
  EVMbench is the first large-scale benchmark for AI agents on smart contract security.<n>Its results have fueled expectations that fully automated AI auditing is within reach.<n>These findings challenge the narrative that fully automated AI auditing is imminent.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-11T14:07:16Z)
• OpenAgentSafety: A Comprehensive Framework for Evaluating Real-World AI Agent Safety [58.201189860217724]
  We introduce OpenAgentSafety, a comprehensive framework for evaluating agent behavior across eight critical risk categories.<n>Unlike prior work, our framework evaluates agents that interact with real tools, including web browsers, code execution environments, file systems, bash shells, and messaging platforms.<n>It combines rule-based analysis with LLM-as-judge assessments to detect both overt and subtle unsafe behaviors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-08T16:18:54Z)
• SOPBench: Evaluating Language Agents at Following Standard Operating Procedures and Constraints [59.645885492637845]
  SOPBench is an evaluation pipeline that transforms each service-specific SOP code program into a directed graph of executable functions.<n>Our approach transforms each service-specific SOP code program into a directed graph of executable functions and requires agents to call these functions based on natural language SOP descriptions.<n>We evaluate 18 leading models, and results show the task is challenging even for top-tier models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-11T17:53:02Z)

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.