Paper Detail

LLM Agents Can Easily Tamper With Their Own Traces

Jeremy Qin, David Schmotz, Derck Prinzhorn, Luca Beurer-Kellner, Ameya Prabhu, Maksym Andriushchenko

arxiv Score 6.2

Published 2026-09-24 · First seen 2026-09-26

General AI

Abstract

Asynchronous monitoring, incident investigations, and compliance audits primarily rely on agent traces to reconstruct what happened. These analyses assume that LLM agents cannot tamper with their own execution traces. We show that local LLM agents such as Claude Code, Codex, Antigravity, Open Code and Grok Build fail to enforce this boundary. All tested harnesses, except Muse Code, allowed agents to delete their traces when asked, without triggering monitor guardrails. We also validate that external attackers can exploit this gap to induce trace deletion. Finally, we show that trace tampering behavior emerges naturally in frontier models, when agents try to improve their rewards. We advise practitioners to ensure trace logging happens through an independent interception mechanism outside of the agent's control, preserving trace integrity even in cases of full host compromise. Overall, our findings identify a concrete failure of trace integrity in agent infrastructure which can be used to conceal misaligned behaviors like scheming or sabotage.

Workflow Status

Review status
pending
Role
unreviewed
Read priority
later
Vote
Not set.
Saved
no
Collections
Not filed yet.
Next action
Not filled yet.

Reading Brief

No structured notes yet. Add `summary_sections`, `why_relevant`, `claim_impact`, or `next_action` in `papers.jsonl` to enrich this view.

Why It Surfaced

No ranking explanation is available yet.

Tags

No tags.

BibTeX

@article{qin2026llm,
  title = {LLM Agents Can Easily Tamper With Their Own Traces},
  author = {Jeremy Qin and David Schmotz and Derck Prinzhorn and Luca Beurer-Kellner and Ameya Prabhu and Maksym Andriushchenko},
  year = {2026},
  abstract = {Asynchronous monitoring, incident investigations, and compliance audits primarily rely on agent traces to reconstruct what happened. These analyses assume that LLM agents cannot tamper with their own execution traces. We show that local LLM agents such as Claude Code, Codex, Antigravity, Open Code and Grok Build fail to enforce this boundary. All tested harnesses, except Muse Code, allowed agents to delete their traces when asked, without triggering monitor guardrails. We also validate that exte},
  url = {https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.30266},
  keywords = {cs.CR, cs.AI},
  eprint = {2609.30266},
  archiveprefix = {arXiv},
}

Metadata

{}