Benchmark Almanac

Agent-SafetyBench

Not in model cards

LLM agents act in 349 tool environments over 2,000 test cases covering 8 safety risk categories and 10 failure modes. A scorer model rates each run safe or unsafe.

About 166 GitHub stars. Data and environments were released 2025-02-20. None of 16 agents in the paper scored above 60% safe. Scoring uses the ShieldAgent model.

In the authors’ words

As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as agents, their integration into interactive environments and tool use introduce new safety challenges beyond those associated with the models themselves. However, the absence of comprehensive benchmarks for evaluating agent safety presents a significant barrier to effective assessment and further improvement. In this paper, we introduce Agent-SafetyBench, a comprehensive benchmark designed to evaluate the safety of LLM agents. Agent-SafetyBench encompasses 349 interaction environments and 2,000 test cases, evaluating 8 categories of safety risks and covering 10 common failure modes frequently encountered in unsafe interactions. Our evaluation of 16 popular LLM agents reveals a concerning result: none of the agents achieves a safety score above 60%. This highlights significant safety challenges in LLM agents and underscores the considerable need for improvement. Through failure mode and helpfulness analysis, we summarize two fundamental safety defects in current LLM agents: lack of robustness and lack of risk awareness. Furthermore, our findings suggest that reliance on defense prompts alone may be insufficient to address these safety issues, emphasizing the need for more advanced and robust strategies. To drive progress in this area, Agent-SafetyBench has been released at https://github.com/thu-coai/Agent-SafetyBench/ to facilitate further research in agent safety evaluation and improvement.

Abstract of Agent-SafetyBench: Evaluating the Safety of LLM Agents (arXiv:2412.14470, CC0)
Made by Tsinghua University (CoAI) Released Dec 2024 Refusing harmful requests All tasks public
Level
Everyday Most adults, without training
Scored
Graded by a model A language model scores each response, usually against a rubric.
Answers
Agent task Many steps in a terminal, browser, desktop, app, game or robot.

No scores here yet

No lab, leaderboard or Epoch AI run has reported a score for Agent-SafetyBench yet.

No lab model card reports it yet

We read the headline results of 479 launch posts from 51 labs, and none of them list this benchmark.

More in Safety and alignment

All 444 in Safety and alignment
  • FORTRESS In use Paired adversarial and benign national-security misuse prompts. Rubric-graded risk score on adversarial and over-refusal score on benign prompts. Claude Opus 5.5 5.78%
  • StrongREJECT In use Forbidden-prompt jailbreak benchmark with a rubric grader that scores how useful a non-refusal actually is. Inkling 98.6%
  • AgentDojo In use Agents do tool-use tasks while tools and data carry prompt injections. Attack success rate counts hijacked runs. Grok 4 Fast 0%
  • MASK In use Measures whether a model contradicts its own elicited beliefs under pressure to lie. Honesty separated from accuracy. Muse Spark Open 98.1%
  • Gray Swan IPI Arena benchmark In use Indirect prompt-injection attacks from public red-teaming competitions replayed on tool, coding and browser agents. Attack success rate at k attempts. GPT-6 Astra 8.50%
  • Agentic misalignment suite (Anthropic) In use Agents in simulated company settings face threats or goal conflicts that invite blackmail, leaking or sabotage. Score is the misaligned action rate. Claude Sonnet 4.5 0%