"Shall We Approve?" Consequence-Aware Approval for Autonomous Coding Agents
Open accessAbstract
Coding agents increasingly rely on automated approvers to decide whether a proposed shell command may run. Existing approvers, from rule-based checkers to guardrail models and deployed permission classifiers, base their decisions on the text of the request and command. Yet a command's behavior depends on the code it invokes and the state of the workspace, and systems that observe file changes leave the assessment to the agent or a human after execution. We present Caper, a consequence-aware approval mechanism that pre-executes each command in a snapshotted sandbox, provides an independent approver with a bounded report of its observed effects, commits allowed commands, and rolls back blocked ones with a reason the agent can act on. Compared with six existing systems, Caper achieves the lowest harmful-outcome rate on SABER (6.7% versus at least 14.8%) and YoloFS-Ext, a benchmark we build in which harmful behavior is hidden inside invoked tools (7.8% versus at least 35.3%), while blocking 1.0% of the safe twins of the dangerous tasks in YoloFS-Ext.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
- Authors
- Wu, W., Chen, J., Sun, Z., Shi, J., Lyu, Y., & Lo, D.
- ORCID
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2026
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2610.40753
- OpenAlex
- W7225099504
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 0
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Security and Verification in Computing
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Access Control and Trust
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
