ClaimReceipt: Verifying Evidence Sufficiency and Coverage in Agent Evaluations

Peiying Zhu; Sidi Chang

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2609.01992

ClaimReceipt: Verifying Evidence Sufficiency and Coverage in Agent Evaluations

Peiying Zhu·Sidi Chang

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Agent evaluations face two distinct evidentiary questions: whether a reported claim is recomputable from retained evidence (sufficiency), and whether the retained records cover the committed experiment set (coverage). Generic logs and hash-linked transcripts answer neither reliably. We introduce ClaimReceipt, a claim-relative receipt specification and selective verifier that binds typed transaction evidence to a signed experiment manifest and returns PASS, INVALID, or INCONCLUSIVE per claim. We freeze the specification before implementation (SHA-256 18d109...b81). On 1,392 historical buyer--seller records, a CR-2 verifier reproduces all five manually labeled audit verdicts, exactly replays 600 deterministic and 792 post-generation records, makes every one of 13 declared field groups non-redundant under tested ablations, and returns the expected result on 11/11 semantic faults with 0/8 false positives. We then run a separate prospective CR-3 epoch: 30 assignments are committed before inference, terminal receipts are signed and chained, and private evidence is encrypted for an auditor. Complete evidence yields coverage and accounting PASS; withholding one terminal receipt returns INCONCLUSIVE_COVERAGE, while withholding all private openings preserves coverage and protocol verification but makes economic claims inconclusive, exactly matching a preregistered prediction. Receipt instrumentation adds 0.021% of model-inference time and 9.9 KB per transaction. A specification-legibility probe indicates that our own frozen specification is not yet unambiguous to an independent reader. Claim verification therefore requires both claim-sufficient evidence and a committed universe against which omissions become visible.

Explore related subjects

cs.AI cs.CR cs.MA

Keep this discovery

BibTeX RIS

Peiying Zhu, Sidi Chang. 2026-09-02. ClaimReceipt: Verifying Evidence Sufficiency and Coverage in Agent Evaluations. https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.01992

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

cs.AI subject cs.CR subject cs.MA subject

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

SoK: When Safe Agents Fail Together: The Security of Multi Agent LLM Systems

Safe agents can fail together. Multi-agent LLM systems (MAS) move information, state, decisions, and authority across principal boundaries, creating failures that local checks may miss. Without an execution-level view, a multi-agent setting can easily be mistaken for evidence of a genuinely multi-agent security effect. We thus systematize MAS security through an execution-centered analysis of 197 works, covering six interaction interfaces, four adversary positions, seven system-level risks, and eight recurring attack paths. We introduce an A-I-R framework that organizes attacks by adversary position, interaction interface, and resulting system-level risk, unifying otherwise fragmented attack mechanisms across MAS. We organize defenses through a five-part contract covering path target, observation, intervention, trust boundary, and recovery, and identify path closure and recovery as key challenges. We audit 44 evaluation and benchmark works and identify open challenges in isolating interaction effects, designing comparable and diagnostic metrics, supporting reuse across MAS designs, and evaluating open-system operation. Together, these findings motivate an interaction-aware view of MAS security: trace attacks end to end, test whether defenses close those paths, and evaluate system-level effects with appropriate counterfactuals.

cs.CR↗

arXiv2026

SkillSafetyBench: Evaluating Agent Safety under Skill-Facing Attack Surfaces

Reusable skills are becoming a common interface for extending large language model agents, packaging procedural guidance with access to files, tools, memory, and execution environments. However, this modularity introduces attack surfaces that are largely missed by existing safety evaluations: even when the user request is benign, unsafe influence may reside in skill guidance, local artifacts, or execution-environment files that steer the agent toward unsafe actions. We present SkillSafetyBench, a runnable benchmark for evaluating such skill-facing safety failures. SkillSafetyBench includes 155 adversarial cases across 47 tasks, 6 risk domains, and 30 safety categories, each evaluated with a case-specific rule-based verifier. Experiments with multiple CLI agents and model backends show that non-user attacks can consistently induce unsafe behavior, with distinct failure patterns across domains, attack methods, and scaffold-model pairings. Our findings suggest that agent safety depends not only on model-level alignment, but also on how agents interpret skills, trust workflow context, and act through executable environments. The complete benchmark is available at https://github.com/AI45Lab/skill-safety-bench.

cs.CR↗

arXiv2026

MACGen: Toward Functionally Correct and Secure Code Generation via Multi-Agent Collaboration

Despite their strong ability to generate code, large language models often fail to produce secure code, as their outputs frequently contain security vulnerabilities. Secure code generation is inherently challenging because it requires solving a multi-objective problem: functional correctness and security. Existing approaches address this challenge by injecting external security knowledge or by using agentic feedback and iterative refinement. However, guideline retrieval often leaves the generator to translate generic advice into task-specific secure implementations, while shared-dialogue multi-agent feedback can blur role boundaries and suffer from context bloat. We present MACGen, a multi-agent framework that integrates planning, security analysis, code synthesis and refinement to jointly optimize security and functionality. A planner constructs a step-by-step plan to satisfy functional requirements. A security advisor identifies likely CWEs and synthesizes task-specific guidelines, a coder then generates code grounded in these artifacts, and a reviewer issues perspective-separated feedback. Rather than sharing full dialogue histories, each agent receives only structured artifacts from upstream stages, enforcing role specialization and reducing uncontrolled context growth. On CWEval and BaxBench, MACGen improves F&S@1 over direct prompting by 19.61 and 10.57 percentage points (pp) on average, respectively.

cs.CR↗