Securing LLM Agents Need Intent-to-Execution Integrity
arXiv SecurityArchived May 19, 2026✓ Full text saved
arXiv:2605.16976v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: This position paper argues that securing LLM agents requires first defining an end-to-end correctness property that specifies when an agent's execution faithfully reflects the user's intent. Modern LLM agents operate over an \emph{intent-to-execution pipeline}, where natural-language instructions are translated into concrete system operations such as tool calls, API requests, and code execution. While recent defenses have made progress in constrain
Full text archived locally
✦ AI Summary· Claude Sonnet
Computer Science > Cryptography and Security
[Submitted on 16 May 2026]
Securing LLM Agents Need Intent-to-Execution Integrity
Wenjie Qu, Ming Xu, Peiran Wang, Shengfang Zhai, Jiaheng Zhang, Dawn Song
This position paper argues that securing LLM agents requires first defining an end-to-end correctness property that specifies when an agent's execution faithfully reflects the user's intent. Modern LLM agents operate over an \emph{intent-to-execution pipeline}, where natural-language instructions are translated into concrete system operations such as tool calls, API requests, and code execution. While recent defenses have made progress in constraining how agents construct tool calls, most existing formulations implicitly assume that tools are trusted. The emergence of systems such as OpenClaw, with open ecosystems of third-party skills and direct access to user environments, breaks this assumption and exposes new failure modes, including malicious or over-privileged components in the execution pipeline.
Despite rapid progress in defense mechanisms, there is no adequate correctness property that defines what ``secure'' means for LLM agents, nor a principled way to evaluate the coverage of existing defenses. We observe that LLM agents are structurally analogous to compilers, where security violations correspond to mis-executions that do not preserve user intent. Drawing on this analogy, we identify two fundamental problem sources -- untrusted data ingestion and untrusted tool execution -- and derive four integrity properties that must hold simultaneously: \emph{Tool Integrity}, \emph{Instruction Integrity}, \emph{Judgment Integrity}, and \emph{Data Flow Integrity}. We call their conjunction \emph{intent-to-execution integrity}.
Analyzing existing agentic defenses against these properties reveals that current systems provide only partial and non-compositional coverage, leaving fundamental gaps in securing modern LLM agents.
Subjects: Cryptography and Security (cs.CR)
Cite as: arXiv:2605.16976 [cs.CR]
(or arXiv:2605.16976v1 [cs.CR] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2605.16976
Focus to learn more
Submission history
From: Wenjie Qu [view email]
[v1] Sat, 16 May 2026 12:53:31 UTC (20 KB)
Access Paper:
HTML (experimental)
view license
Current browse context:
cs.CR
< prev | next >
new | recent | 2026-05
Change to browse by:
cs
References & Citations
NASA ADS
Google Scholar
Semantic Scholar
Export BibTeX Citation
Bookmark
Bibliographic Tools
Bibliographic and Citation Tools
Bibliographic Explorer Toggle
Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)
Connected Papers Toggle
Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)
Litmaps Toggle
Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)
scite.ai Toggle
scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)
Code, Data, Media
Demos
Related Papers
About arXivLabs
Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)