EvoMal, self-poisoning in self-evolving coding agents
Free while signed in. Answers cite the passages they came from.

Xiaodong Wu, Zhimin Zhao, Bram Adams, Ahmed Hassan and coauthors identify self-poisoning in self-evolving coding agents, where a retrieved malicious skill becomes the template for a newly authored skill that carries the payload forward.
The attacker never invokes anything: Malicious skills are planted in a shared library; the agent itself authors, stores and executes the resulting malicious skill, which is what makes existing submission-focused defenses miss it.
Banner-wrapped payloads amplify imitation: EvoMal wraps an interchangeable payload in benign-looking structural elements that induce the imitating agent to reproduce the enclosed code.
Agent self-poisoning rate 20.3% to 41.8%: Across six models on 153 tool-relevant SWE-bench Verified tasks, poisoned libraries end up holding 4.9 to 9.0 times as many malicious skills as were planted; task-family-tailored descriptions push ASPR to 86.7%.
It persists after cleanup: Qwen3 retains a round-5 ASPR of 68% after planted skills are removed, because agent-authored copies remain. A counter-prompt defense cuts ASPR to at most 6.7% with no significant task-completion loss.
Abstract
Self-evolving LLM coding agents write their own tools by imitating retrieved skills from shared skill libraries. We identify a vulnerability in this loop: during authoring, a retrieved malicious skill can become the template for a new skill that preserves the payload. We call this self-poisoning: the agent authors, stores, and runs the resulting malicious skill. We exploit it through EvoMal, an attack that amplifies self-poisoning by wrapping an interchangeable payload in a banner, a set of benign-looking structural elements that induces an imitating agent to reproduce the enclosed code. The attacker plants malicious skills in the library without invoking them. The agent then authors and executes new skills carrying the harmful code. Each authored copy can re-enter the library and be imitated again, forming a self-propagating worm that persists after the planted skills are removed. We define the agent self-poisoning rate (ASPR) as the fraction of tasks that add a newly authored malicious skill to the library. Across six models on 153 tool-relevant SWE-bench Verified tasks, ASPR ranges from 20.3% to 41.8%, and the poisoned libraries hold 4.9 to 9.0 times as many malicious skills as were planted. The vulnerability also appears without a banner: DeepSeek-V4-Pro reaches 11.1% ASPR with the payload alone. Tailoring the planted skill descriptions to one task family raises ASPR to 86.7%. After the planted skills are removed, Qwen3 retains a round-5 ASPR of 68% because agent-authored copies remain. These copies evade existing defenses, which focus on attacker-submitted names, code, and signatures. We propose counter-prompt, a defense that discourages banner-style copying and reduces EvoMal's ASPR to at most 6.7% with no significant task-completion loss.
Get next week’s papers.
The same picks and the same summaries, in your inbox. Free, and 176 issues deep.
Subscribe on Substack