Building to the Test: Coding Agents Deliver What You Check, Not What You Requested

Benchmarks are widely used to evaluate task completion by Large Language Models (LLMs), but this approach has accumulated construction-validity problems, and a passing score may not show whether the requested task was delivered. We study both problems. In a controlled code-as-spec setup, two production Copilot CLI agents (claude-opus-4.7, gpt-5.5) re-implement a React Fluent-UI data table in Angular as a reusable library under a hidden 222-test Playwright oracle across 18 runs and three oracle-availability conditions. Alongside the score, we run a mechanical library audit and check each verdict with a no-op ablation. Without the oracle, the library is present but unfinished, revealed by scores. With the oracle in the loop, the score reaches near-perfect, but from a demo holding the tested behavior directly, the library left dead or absent. We call this building to the test; the broader disposition behind both we call validation self-awareness. The agent does not, on its own, validate what it ships as a user would. Prevalence remains an open question across other agents, signals, and model families. Beyond benchmark scores, dispositions like validation self-awareness merit research attention.

Oracle Poisoning: Corrupting Knowledge Graphs to Weaponise AI Agent Reasoning

We define Oracle Poisoning, an attack class in which an adversary corrupts a structured knowledge graph that AI agents query at runtime via tool-use protocols, causing incorrect conclusions through correct reasoning. Unlike prompt injection, Oracle Poisoning manipulates the data agents reason over, not their instructions. We demonstrate six attack scenarios against a production 42-million-node code knowledge graph, providing the first empirical demonstration of knowledge graph poisoning against a production-scale agentic system, distinct from CTI embedding poisoning. Primary evaluation uses real SDK tool-use across nine models from three providers (N=30 per model), where models autonomously invoke a graph query tool and reason from results. The result is unambiguous: every tested model trusts poisoned data at 100% at moderate attacker sophistication(L2), with 269 valid trials (of 270) accepting fabricated security claims under directed queries. Under open-ended prompts, trust drops to 3-55%, confirming prompt framing as a confound; we report both conditions. An attacker sophistication gradient reveals discrete break points, a minimum skill at which trust flips from 0% to 100%, reframing the attack as a question not of whether but of how much. A controlled delivery-mode comparison shows that inline evaluation produces false negatives: GPT-5.1 shows 0% trust inline but 100% under both simulated and real agentic tool-use, demonstrating that delivery mode is a first-order confound. We evaluate five defences; read-only access control eliminates the direct mutation vector, while the remaining four are partial and model-dependent. Analysis of four additional platforms suggests the attack may generalise across the knowledge-graph ecosystem.