AuthGateBench: Benchmarking LLMs as Authorization Gate

We introduce AuthGateBench, the first policy-guided benchmark for authorization gating under benign requests. It comes from a paper posted to arXiv on 9 November 2026. Automated approval systems let coding agents execute high-risk actions with minimal human oversight by delegating the authorization decision to a classifier, typically a large language model (LLM). Such systems, adopted in tools like Claude Code and Codex, remain vulnerable to failure modes such as scope escalation, where the agent takes actions exceeding what the user authorized. Existing benchmarks focus mainly on malicious requests, evaluating refusal under an implicit policy. We implement a novel pipeline where an LLM generates contrast pairs with identical action and trajectory but differing request, flipping the label between block and allow. This allows us to assess whether models reason over context rather than the action alone. We further examine whether auxiliary environment signals can help models make better decisions. The resulting benchmark comprises 1,400 instances spanning five failure modes drawn from real-world Claude Code incidents. Evaluations show accuracy degrades unevenly across failure modes as models over-rely on internal safety alignment, and models still block most actions even when explicitly authorized, revealing unstable rather than deterministic decisions; retrospectively retrieved environment signals, however, substantially improve authorization accuracy.

Why it counts

We introduce AuthGateBench, the first policy-guided benchmark for authorization gating under benign requests. Evaluations show accuracy degrades unevenly across failure modes as models over-rely on internal safety alignment, and models still block most actions even when explicitly authorized, revealing unstable rather than deterministic decisions; retrospectively retrieved environment signals, however, substantially improve authorization accuracy.

Sources

Primary source: primary source

What is not known

This brief does not claim independent replication. Claims that appear only on X and not in the primary source stay unknown.