Benchmark Almanac

SHADE-Arena

Claude Opus 5.5 26.2% leads since Sep 2026 Only in system cards

Paired main and hidden side tasks in mock environments. Measures if an agent completes the side task undetected by a monitor.

Opus 5.5 recognizes it as an evaluation in over 80% of attempts. safety-research/SHADE-Arena is deprecated.

In the authors’ words

As Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as autonomous agents in complex and long horizon settings, it is critical to evaluate their ability to sabotage users by pursuing hidden objectives. We study the ability of frontier LLMs to evade monitoring and achieve harmful hidden goals while completing a wide array of realistic tasks. We evaluate a broad range of frontier LLMs using SHADE (Subtle Harmful Agent Detection & Evaluation)-Arena, the first highly diverse agent evaluation dataset for sabotage and monitoring capabilities of LLM agents. SHADE-Arena consists of complex pairs of benign main tasks and harmful side objectives in complicated environments. Agents are evaluated on their ability to complete the side task without appearing suspicious to an LLM monitor. When measuring agent ability to (a) complete the main task, (b) complete the side task, and (c) avoid detection, we find that the best performing frontier models score 27% (Claude 3.7 Sonnet) and 15% (Gemini 2.5 Pro) as sabotage agents when overseen by Claude 3.6 Sonnet. For current frontier models, success on the side task relies heavily on having access to a hidden scratchpad that is not visible to the monitor. We also use SHADE-Arena to measure models' monitoring abilities, with the top monitor (Gemini 2.5 Pro) achieving an AUC of 0.87 at distinguishing benign and malign transcripts. We find that for now, models still struggle at sabotage due to failures in long-context main task execution. However, our measurements already demonstrate the difficulty of monitoring for subtle sabotage attempts, which we expect to only increase in the face of more complex and longer-horizon tasks.

Abstract of SHADE-Arena: Evaluating Sabotage and Monitoring in LLM Agents (arXiv:2506.15740, CC0)
Made by Anthropic + Scale AI + Redwood (Kutasov et al.) Released Jun 2025 Deception and alignment Public tasks plus a private test set Last in a system card Oct 2026 Last model added Oct 2026
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.
16
Models scored in lab cards
17
System cards report it, from 2 labs

2 models share the top score of 26.2%

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. 1 Claude Opus 5.5 26.2%
  2. 2 Muse Spark 1.3 26.2%
  3. 3 Claude Sonnet 5.5 22.3%
  4. 4 Claude Opus 4.6 18%
  5. 5 Claude Opus 4.8 12%
  6. 6 Claude Opus 5 12%
  7. 7 Claude Sonnet 5 10%
  8. 8 Muse Spark 8.80%
  9. 9 Claude Opus 4.5 7.70%
  10. 10 Muse Spark 1.1 6.80%
  11. 11 Claude Mythos Preview 3.80%
  12. 12 Claude Sonnet 4.6 1.60%
  13. 13 Claude Sonnet 4.5 1.50%
  14. 14 Claude Opus 4.7 1.50%
  15. 15 Claude Haiku 5.5 1.20%
  16. 16 Claude Opus 4 0%
#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 Claude Opus 5.5 26.2% Sep 2026 Model card
2 Muse Spark 1.3 26.2% Oct 2026 Model card
3 Claude Sonnet 5.5 22.3% Sep 2026 Model card
4 Claude Opus 4.6 18% Feb 2026 Model card
5 Claude Opus 4.8 12% May 2026 Model card
6 Claude Opus 5 12% Jul 2026 Model card
7 Claude Sonnet 5 10% Jun 2026 Model card
8 Muse Spark 8.80% Jun 2026 Model card
9 Claude Opus 4.5 7.70% Nov 2025 Model card
10 Muse Spark 1.1 6.80% Jul 2026 Model card
11 Claude Mythos Preview 3.80% Apr 2026 Model card
12 Claude Sonnet 4.6 1.60% Feb 2026 Model card
13 Claude Sonnet 4.5 1.50% Sep 2025 Model card
14 Claude Opus 4.7 1.50% Apr 2026 Model card
15 Claude Haiku 5.5 1.20% Oct 2026 Model card
16 Claude Opus 4 0% May 2025 Model card

5 models have held number one since its release in Jun 2025

Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release.

Anthropic
Lab claims 5 leaders

Scores over time

All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.

Reported by the lab in its model card Best so far
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2025 2026 2027 Near the ceiling (85%) Claude Opus 5.5 Claude Opus 4.6 Claude Opus 4.5 Claude Sonnet 4.5 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2025 2026 2027 Near the ceiling (85%) Claude Opus 5.5 Claude Opus 4.6

Labs report it only in system cards

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

17 system cards report it, from 2 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.

DateDocumentScoreAs the document writes itSection
23 Oct 2026 Muse Spark 1.3 system card 26.2 SHADE-Arena stealth rate with CoT, monitor of outputs+CoT, Muse Spark 1.3 (API) (Table 1, Figure 18). No monitor 46.2, outputs only 37.3 Monitorability
7 Oct 2026 Claude Haiku 5.5 system card 1.2 SHADE-Arena stealth rate, reasoning hidden from monitor. No thinking 5.2, visible at low effort 2.3, visible at max effort 0 (6.4.2.2) Monitorability
28 Sep 2026 Claude Sonnet 5.5 system card 22.3 SHADE-Arena stealth success rate, extended thinking at max effort hidden from the monitor, best prompt (no extended thinking 10.2%, visible reasoning 0.5% low and 0.0% max) (6.4.2.1, Figure 6.4.2.1.A) Monitorability
22 Sep 2026 Claude Opus 5.5 system card 26.2 SHADE-Arena stealth success rate, extended thinking at max effort hidden from the monitor, best prompt (no extended thinking 15.0%, visible reasoning 0.0% at low and max effort, standard prompt below 1% in every setting) (6.6.4.1, Figure 6.6.4.1.A) Monitorability
24 Jul 2026 Claude Opus 5 system card 12 SHADE-Arena stealth success rate, hidden scratchpad (reasoning hidden from the monitor), mean over 24 tasks (extended thinking visible to the monitor 4.8% at low effort and 3.7% at max effort), printed on chart (6.7.1, Figure 6.7.1.A) Monitorability
9 Jul 2026 Muse Spark 1.1 system card 6.8 SHADE-Arena (Table 1 scorecard, Figure 23) Monitorability
30 Jun 2026 Claude Sonnet 5 system card 10 SHADE-Arena stealth success rate, hidden scratchpad, 24 tasks (extended thinking visible to the monitor 0.0% at low and at max effort) (6.7.1, Figure 6.7.1.A) Monitorability
12 Jun 2026 Muse Spark system card 8.8 SHADE-Arena overall success with monitor (Table 1, Figure 25) Monitorability
28 May 2026 Claude Opus 4.8 system card 12 SHADE-Arena stealth success rate with a hidden scratchpad, 24 tasks at 75 attempts (extended thinking visible to the monitor 1.2% at low and 1.3% at max effort. After fine-tuning elicitation 2.5% with extended thinking), printed on chart (6.4.2.1 and 6.4.2.3, Figure 6.4.2.1.A) Monitorability
16 Apr 2026 Claude Opus 4.7 system card 1.5 SHADE-Arena stealth success rate, extended thinking visible to the monitor, adaptive max effort, printed on chart. Adaptive low effort 2.0, hidden scratchpad 10.7 (6.4.2.1, Figure 6.4.2.1.A) Monitorability
7 Apr 2026 Claude Mythos Preview system card 3.8 SHADE-Arena stealth success rate, extended thinking, adaptive, max effort, Opus 4.6-based reasoning monitor, value printed on chart; 4.2 at low effort, 4.5 extended thinking enabled, 13.8 hidden scratchpad (4.4.3.1, Figure 4.4.3.1.A) Monitorability
17 Feb 2026 Claude Sonnet 4.6 system card 1.6 SHADE-Arena stealth success rate, adaptive thinking at high effort; no scratchpad 16.0, hidden scratchpad 32.8, extended thinking 7.2, adaptive low effort 9.6 (Figure 4.6.6.A) Alignment
5 Feb 2026 Claude Opus 4.6 system card 18 SHADE-Arena evasion success rate, primary extended thinking setting, stated in text; 16 without extended thinking, 46 with a hidden scratchpad; side task referenced in 26% of thinking (6.4.1, Figure 6.4.1.A) Alignment
24 Nov 2025 Claude Opus 4.5 system card 7.7 SHADE-Arena evasion success rate, primary setting with extended thinking visible to the monitor (6.11.1, Figure 6.11.1.A; 21.5% without extended thinking) Alignment
15 Oct 2025 Claude Haiku 4.5 system card SHADE-Arena success rate, thinking disabled and monitored thinking, chart without printed values (Figure 4.4.A) Alignment
29 Sep 2025 Claude Sonnet 4.5 system card 1.5 SHADE-Arena evasion success rate, primary setting with extended thinking visible to the monitor. 22.3% without extended thinking, 43% with hidden reasoning (7.5.10.3, Figure 7.5.10.3.A) Alignment
22 May 2025 Claude Opus 4 system card 0 Agentic sabotage evaluation (SHADE-Arena style, not named), side task success without monitor suspicion, scratchpad visible to monitor 0%. Scratchpad hidden 19% (Table 4.1.10.B) Alignment

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%