Gray Swan IPI Arena benchmark
Indirect prompt-injection attacks from public red-teaming competitions replayed on tool, coding and browser agents. Attack success rate at k attempts.
Labs whose models were in the competitions score worse (attacks were tailored), so Anthropic reports only non-participating models. Gray Swan refreshes the attack set after new competitions. The Q1+Q2 2026 set has 37 scenarios and 1,804 transferable attacks, versus 41 behaviors in the public release.
In the authors’ words
LLM based agents are increasingly deployed in high stakes settings where they process external data sources such as emails, documents, and code repositories. This creates exposure to indirect prompt injection attacks, where adversarial instructions embedded in external content manipulate agent behavior without user awareness. A critical but underexplored dimension of this threat is concealment: since users tend to observe only an agent's final response, an attack can conceal its existence by presenting no clue of compromise in the final user facing response while successfully executing harmful actions. This leaves users unaware of the manipulation and likely to accept harmful outcomes as legitimate. We present findings from a large scale public red teaming competition evaluating this dual objective across three agent settings: tool calling, coding, and computer use. The competition attracted 464 participants who submitted 272000 attack attempts against 13 frontier models, yielding 8648 successful attacks across 41 scenarios. All models proved vulnerable, with attack success rates ranging from 0.5% (Claude Opus 4.5) to 8.5% (Gemini 2.5 Pro). We identify universal attack strategies that transfer across 21 of 41 behaviors and multiple model families, suggesting fundamental weaknesses in instruction following architectures. Capability and robustness showed weak correlation, with Gemini 2.5 Pro exhibiting both high capability and high vulnerability. To address benchmark saturation and obsoleteness, we will endeavor to deliver quarterly updates through continued red teaming competitions. We open source the competition environment for use in evaluations, along with 95 successful attacks against Qwen that did not transfer to any closed source model. We share model-specific attack data with respective frontier labs and the full dataset with the UK AISI and US CAISI to support robustness research.
- 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.
GPT-6 Astra leads with 8.50%
Best score per model as labs report them in their own cards. Labs pick their own settings, so these compare less cleanly than independent runs.
- 1 GPT-6 Astra 8.50%
- 2
Muse Spark 1.3 6.80%
- 3 Claude Haiku 5.5 0.70%
- 4
Gemini 4 Argon 0.70%
- 5 Claude Sonnet 5 0.60%
- 6 Claude Sonnet 5.5 0.40%
- 7 Claude Opus 5 0.20%
- 8 Claude Fable 5.1 0.10%
- 9 Claude Opus 5.5 0.10%
- 10
Gemini 4 Carbon 0%
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | GPT-6 Astra | 8.50% | Sep 2026 | Model card | |
| 2 | | 6.80% | Oct 2026 | Model card | |
| 3 | Claude Haiku 5.5 | 0.70% | Oct 2026 | Model card | |
| 4 | | 0.70% | Oct 2026 | Model card | |
| 5 | Claude Sonnet 5 | 0.60% | Jun 2026 | Model card | |
| 6 | Claude Sonnet 5.5 | 0.40% | Sep 2026 | Model card | |
| 7 | Claude Opus 5 | 0.20% | Jul 2026 | Model card | |
| 8 | Claude Fable 5.1 | 0.10% | Sep 2026 | Model card | |
| 9 | Claude Opus 5.5 | 0.10% | Sep 2026 | Model card | |
| 10 | | 0% | Oct 2026 | Model card |
2 models have held number one since its release in Mar 2026
Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release.
Scores over time
All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.
One lab put it in a launch post in the last six months
Launch posts from every lab that has listed it, one tick per post. Tall colored ticks include it, and short gray ones leave it out.
| Date | Launch post | Score | As the post writes it |
|---|---|---|---|
| 28 Oct 2026 | 0 | Gray Swan Indirect Prompt Injection (IPI) Benchmark, attack success rate 0.0% (lower is better) |
9 system cards report it, from 4 labs
Besides launch posts, we read the system cards, model cards and technical reports labs publish with a release. They report far more, including safety and frontier-risk tests.
| Date | Document | Score | As the document writes it | Section |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 23 Oct 2026 | | 6.8 | Gray Swan IPI Arena (2026 Q1 + Q2) indirect ASR at k=15, Muse Spark 1.3 (API) max (Figure 31 and text) | Robustness |
| 13 Oct 2026 | | 0.7 | Gray Swan IPI benchmark, attack success rate at k=15 attempts 0.7% (Figure 6.9) | Robustness |
| 7 Oct 2026 | Claude Haiku 5.5 system card | 0.7 | Gray Swan IPI benchmark (Q1+Q2 2026), attack success rate at k=1, extended thinking (k=10 5.5, k=15 7.1 as stated in text), lower is better (Figure 5.2.1.A) | Robustness |
| 28 Sep 2026 | Claude Sonnet 5.5 system card | 0.4 | Gray Swan Indirect Prompt Injection benchmark, attack success rate at k=1 (2.7% at k=10, 3.4% at k=15), lower is better (5.2.1, Figure 5.2.1.A) | Robustness |
| 22 Sep 2026 | Claude Opus 5.5 system card | 0.1 | Gray Swan Indirect Prompt Injection benchmark (Q1+Q2 2026), attack success rate at k=1 with classifier fallbacks, no prompt injection protections (0.7% at k=10, 1.0% at k=15), lower is better (5.2.1, Figure 5.2.1.A) | Robustness |
| 3 Sep 2026 | GPT-6 Astra system card | 8.5 | Gray Swan IPI Arena, estimated attack success rate over 15 attempts on 1,810 attacks, safeguards-enabled checkpoint, lower is better (5.2, Figure 5) | Robustness |
| 1 Sep 2026 | Claude Fable 5.1 system card | 0.1 | Gray Swan IPI benchmark (Q1+Q2 2026), attack success rate at k=1 with classifier-triggered fallbacks to Opus 4.8, extended thinking; 0.7% at k=10, 1.0% at k=15 (Figure 5.2.1.A, 5.2.1) | Robustness |
| 24 Jul 2026 | Claude Opus 5 system card | 0.2 | Gray Swan IPI benchmark (Q1 2026), probability of a successful attack at k=1, extended thinking, no additional safeguards (1.6% at k=10, 2.0% at k=15), lower is better (5.2.1, Figure 5.2.1.B) | Robustness |
| 30 Jun 2026 | Claude Sonnet 5 system card | 0.6 | Gray Swan IPI benchmark (Q1 2026), attack success rate at k=1, extended thinking, no additional safeguards, lower is better (k=10 4.7%, k=15 5.9%) (5.2.1, Figure 5.2.1.B) | Robustness |
More 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%
- 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%
- StrongREJECT v2 (Meta) In use Models face a cascade of jailbreak attacks on disallowed behaviors adapted from StrongREJECT plus internal ones. Reports attack success rate.
Muse Spark 1.1 0.50%