PreprintCited by 0Security and Verification in ComputingAdversarial Robustness in Machine LearningAdvanced Malware Detection Techniques

Agent Skills in the Wild: An Empirical Study of Security Vulnerabilities at Scale

Open access
Liu, Yi, Wang, Weizhe, Feng, Ruitao, Zhang, Yao, Xu, Guangquan, Deng, Gelei, Li, Yuekang, Zhang, Leo·2026·arXiv

Abstract

The rise of AI agent frameworks has introduced agent skills, modular packages containing instructions and executable code that dynamically extend agent capabilities. While this architecture enables powerful customization, skills execute with implicit trust and minimal vetting, creating a significant yet uncharacterized attack surface. We conduct the first large-scale empirical security analysis of this emerging ecosystem, collecting 42,447 skills from two major marketplaces and systematically analyzing 31,132 using SkillScan, a multi-stage detection framework integrating static analysis with LLM-based semantic classification. Our findings reveal pervasive security risks: 26.1% of skills contain at least one vulnerability, spanning 14 distinct patterns across four categories: prompt injection, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, and supply chain risks. Data exfiltration (13.3%) and privilege escalation (11.8%) are most prevalent, while 5.2% of skills exhibit high-severity patterns strongly suggesting malicious intent. We find that skills bundling executable scripts are 2.12x more likely to contain vulnerabilities than instruction-only skills (OR=2.12, p<0.001). Our contributions include: (1) a grounded vulnerability taxonomy derived from 8,126 vulnerable skills, (2) a validated detection methodology achieving 86.7% precision and 82.5% recall, and (3) an open dataset and detection toolkit to support future research. These results demonstrate an urgent need for capability-based permission systems and mandatory security vetting before this attack vector is further exploited.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2601.10338

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Protocol spoofing can cause unauthorized actions under the appearance of legitimate interaction.

    “Protocol spoofing-forged tool manifests or manipulated endpoints-can cause unauthorized actions under the appearance of legitimate interaction [Liu et al., 2026, Guo et al., 2026, Wang et al., 2026c, Lin et al., 2025b].”

    From Externalization in LLM Agents: A Unified Review of Memory, Skills, Protocols and Harness Engineering (2026) · cites this paper as Liu et al., 2026

    The Introduction (page unavailable) says a seemingly benign skill could execute ransomware and that a compromised skill could execute unauthorized commands, supporting the general risk of harmful actions disguised as legitimate use. It does not describe protocol spoofing, forged tool manifests, or manipulated endpoints as the mechanism. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • As skills circulate as shared artifacts, they introduce new security and governance risks, with a substantial fraction of community-contributed skills found to contain vulnerabilities.

    “moreover, as skills circulate as shared artifacts, they introduce new security and governance risks, with a substantial fraction of community-contributed skills found to contain vulnerabilities (Liu et al., 2026).”
  • Large-scale empirical studies report substantial rates of vulnerabilities in public skill ecosystems, including prompt injection, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, and supply-chain risk.

    “Large-scale empirical studies of public skill ecosystems report substantial rates of vulnerabilities, including prompt injection, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, and supply-chain risk [Liu et al., 2026].”
  • Shared infrastructure introduces new governance problems.

    “But shared infrastructure also introduces new governance problems [Deng et al., 2025, Liu et al., 2026, Kong et al., 2025].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

Research works printed but not linked: 18

  1. Adam Barth, Adrienne Porter Felt, Prateek Saxena, and Aaron Boodman. 2010. Protecting Browsers from Extension Vulnerabilities. In Proceedings of the 17th Annual Network and Distributed System Security Symposium (NDSS '10). Internet Society. Early analysis of Firefox extension security; proposed Chrome extension architecture.
  2. Ruian Duan, Omar Alrawi, Ranjita Pai Kasturi, Ryan Elder, Brendan Saltafor- maggio, and Wenke Lee. 2021. Towards Measuring Supply Chain Attacks on Package Managers for Interpreted Languages. In Proceedings of the 2021 Net- work and Distributed System Security Symposium (NDSS '21). Internet Society. doi:10.14722/ndss.2021.23055 Identified 339 malware packages across npm, PyPI, and RubyGems; Georgia Tech. · DOI
  3. Shehan Edirimannage, Charitha Elvitigala, Asitha Kottahachchi Kankanamge Don, Wathsara Daluwatta, Primal Wijesekara, and Ibrahim Khalil. 2024. Devel- opers Are Victims Too: A Comprehensive Analysis of The VS Code Extension Ecosystem. arXiv:2411.07479 [cs.CR] Analyzed 52,880 extensions, found 5.6% with suspicious behavior. · arXiv
  4. Benjamin Eriksson, Pablo Picazo-Sanchez, and Andrei Sabelfeld. 2022. Hard- ening the Security Analysis of Browser Extensions. In Proceedings of the 37th ACM/SIGAPP Symposium on Applied Computing (SAC '22). ACM, 1694-1703. doi:10.1145/3477314.3507098 Found 4,410 extensions stealing search queries; Chalmers University. · DOI
  5. Adrienne Porter Felt, Elizabeth Ha, Serge Egelman, Arber Haney, Erika Chin, and David Wagner. 2012. Android Permissions: User Attention, Comprehension, and Behavior. In Proceedings of the 8th Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS '12). ACM. Foundational study on permission consent fatigue.
  6. Kai Greshake, Sahar Abdelnabi, Shailesh Mishra, Christoph Endres, Thorsten Holz, and Mario Fritz. 2023. Not What You've Signed Up For: Compromising Real- World LLM-Integrated Applications with Indirect Prompt Injection. In Proceedings of the 16th ACM Workshop on Artificial Intelligence and Security (AISec '23). ACM, 79-90. doi:10.1145/3605764.3623985 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Mohammed Mehedi Hasan, Hao Li, Emad Fallahzadeh, Gopi Krishnan Rajbahadur, Bram Adams, and Ahmed E Hassan. 2025. Model context protocol (mcp) at first glance: Studying the security and maintainability of mcp servers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.13538 (2025). · arXiv
  8. J. Richard Landis and Gary G. Koch. 1977. The Measurement of Observer Agree- ment for Categorical Data. Biometrics 33, 1 (1977), 159-174. doi:10.2307/2529310 Classic reference for interpreting Cohen's kappa: 0.61-0.80 substantial, 0.81-1.00 almost perfect agreement. · DOI · Paper page
  9. Yupei Liu, Yuqi Jia, Runpeng Geng, Jinyuan Jia, and Neil Zhenqiang Gong. 2024. Formalizing and Benchmarking Prompt Injection Attacks and Defenses. In Pro- ceedings of the 33rd USENIX Security Symposium. USENIX Association, 1831-1847. Penn State and Duke University.
  10. Marc Ohm, Henrik Plate, Arnold Sykosch, and Michael Meier. 2020. Backstabber's Knife Collection: A Review of Open Source Software Supply Chain Attacks. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Detection of Intrusions and Malware, and Vulnerability Assessment (DIMVA '20). Springer, 23-43.
  11. Walter J. Rogan and Beth Gladen. 1978. Estimating Prevalence from the Results of a Screening Test. American Journal of Epidemiology 107, 1 (1978), 71-76. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a112510 Standard epidemiological method for correcting prevalence estimates when using imperfect diagnostic tests. · DOI · Paper page
  12. David Schmotz, Sahar Abdelnabi, and Maksym Andriushchenko. 2025. Agent Skills Enable a New Class of Realistic and Trivially Simple Prompt Injections. arXiv:2510.26328 [cs.CR] Demonstrates prompt injection through agent skill files; shows how to bypass Claude Code guardrails. · arXiv
  13. Xinyue Shen, Zeyuan Chen, Michael Backes, Yun Shen, and Yang Zhang. 2024. "Do Anything Now": Characterizing and Evaluating In-The-Wild Jailbreak Prompts on Large Language Models. In Proceedings of the 2024 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS '24) (Salt Lake City, UT, USA). ACM. doi:10.1145/3658644.3670388 · DOI · Paper page
  14. Xinyue Shen, Yun Shen, Michael Backes, and Yang Zhang. 2025. GPTracker: A Large-Scale Measurement of Misused GPTs. In Proceedings of the 2025 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (S&P '25). IEEE. Collected 755,297 GPTs and identified 2,051 misused GPTs.
  15. Shreya Singh, Gaurav Varshney, Tarun Kumar Singh, Vidhi Mishra, and Khushi Verma. 2025. A Study on Malicious Browser Extensions in 2025. arXiv:2503.04292 [cs.CR] IIT Jammu. · arXiv
  16. Claes Wohlin, Per Runeson, Martin Höst, Magnus C. Ohlsson, Björn Regnell, and Anders Wesslén. 2012. Experimentation in Software Engineering. Springer. doi:10. 1007/978-3-642-29044-2 Standard reference for validity threats in empirical software engineering: construct, internal, external, and conclusion validity. · DOI · Paper page
  17. Junan Zhang, Kaifeng Huang, Yiheng Huang, Bihuan Chen, Ruisi Wang, Chong Wang, and Xin Yi Peng. 2025. Killing Two Birds with One Stone: Malicious Package Detection in NPM and PyPI using a Single Model of Malicious Behavior Sequence. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 34, 4 (2025), 1-28. doi:10.1145/3705304 Detected 683 and 799 new malicious packages in PyPI and NPM. · DOI
  18. Markus Zimmermann, Cristian-Alexandru Staicu, Cam Tenny, and Michael Pradel. 2019. Small World with High Risks: A Study of Security Threats in the npm Ecosystem. In Proceedings of the 28th USENIX Security Symposium. USENIX Asso- ciation, 995-1010.

Authors
Liu, Y., Wang, W., Feng, R., Zhang, Y., Xu, G., Deng, G., Li, Y., & Zhang, L.
Affiliations
  • Tianjin University (CN)
  • Southern Cross University (AU)
  • Nanyang Technological University (SG)
  • UNSW Sydney (AU)
  • Griffith University (AU)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2026
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W7124446840
Cited by
0
References
0
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Security and Verification in Computing
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Signal Processing › Advanced Malware Detection Techniques
Keywords
AI agent skills, prompt injection, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain risk, vulnerability detection, vulnerability taxonomy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review