Daily Papers

LLM agents are an emerging form of AI systems where large language models (LLMs) serve as the central component, utilizing a diverse set of tools to complete user-assigned tasks. Despite their great potential, LLM agents pose significant security risks. When interacting with the external world, they may encounter malicious commands from attackers, leading to the execution of dangerous actions. A promising way to address this is by enforcing the principle of least privilege: allowing only essential actions for task completion while blocking unnecessary ones. However, achieving this is challenging, as it requires covering diverse agent scenarios while preserving both security and utility. We introduce Progent, the first privilege control mechanism for LLM agents. At its core is a domain-specific language for flexibly expressing privilege control policies applied during agent execution. These policies provide fine-grained constraints over tool calls, deciding when tool calls are permissible and specifying fallbacks if they are not. This enables agent developers and users to craft suitable policies for their specific use cases and enforce them deterministically to guarantee security. Thanks to its modular design, integrating Progent does not alter agent internals and requires only minimal changes to agent implementation, enhancing its practicality and potential for widespread adoption. To automate policy writing, we leverage LLMs to generate policies based on user queries, which are then updated dynamically for improved security and utility. Our extensive evaluation shows that it enables strong security while preserving high utility across three distinct scenarios or benchmarks: AgentDojo, ASB, and AgentPoison. Furthermore, we perform an in-depth analysis, showcasing the effectiveness of its core components and the resilience of its automated policy generation against adaptive attacks.

As Large Language Model (LLM) agents become increasingly capable of automating complex, multi-step tasks, the need for robust, secure, and predictable architectural patterns is paramount. This paper provides a comprehensive guide to the ``Plan-then-Execute'' (P-t-E) pattern, an agentic design that separates strategic planning from tactical execution. We explore the foundational principles of P-t-E, detailing its core components - the Planner and the Executor - and its architectural advantages in predictability, cost-efficiency, and reasoning quality over reactive patterns like ReAct (Reason + Act). A central focus is placed on the security implications of this design, particularly its inherent resilience to indirect prompt injection attacks by establishing control-flow integrity. We argue that while P-t-E provides a strong foundation, a defense-in-depth strategy is necessary, and we detail essential complementary controls such as the Principle of Least Privilege, task-scoped tool access, and sandboxed code execution. To make these principles actionable, this guide provides detailed implementation blueprints and working code references for three leading agentic frameworks: LangChain (via LangGraph), CrewAI, and AutoGen. Each framework's approach to implementing the P-t-E pattern is analyzed, highlighting unique features like LangGraph's stateful graphs for re-planning, CrewAI's declarative tool scoping for security, and AutoGen's built-in Docker sandboxing. Finally, we discuss advanced patterns, including dynamic re-planning loops, parallel execution with Directed Acyclic Graphs (DAGs), and the critical role of Human-in-the-Loop (HITL) verification, to offer a complete strategic blueprint for architects, developers, and security engineers aiming to build production-grade, resilient, and trustworthy LLM agents.

Human feedback can prevent overtly harmful utterances in conversational models, but may not automatically mitigate subtle problematic behaviors such as a stated desire for self-preservation or power. Constitutional AI offers an alternative, replacing human feedback with feedback from AI models conditioned only on a list of written principles. We find this approach effectively prevents the expression of such behaviors. The success of simple principles motivates us to ask: can models learn general ethical behaviors from only a single written principle? To test this, we run experiments using a principle roughly stated as "do what's best for humanity". We find that the largest dialogue models can generalize from this short constitution, resulting in harmless assistants with no stated interest in specific motivations like power. A general principle may thus partially avoid the need for a long list of constitutions targeting potentially harmful behaviors. However, more detailed constitutions still improve fine-grained control over specific types of harms. This suggests both general and specific principles have value for steering AI safely.