Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
AgentSec provides a dataset analyzing decision processes in autonomous AI agents, highlighting reasoning dynamics.
Agent-based systems built on large language models (LLMs) increasingly rely on complex internal reasoning processes, tool interactions, and memory mechanisms. However, the internal decision-making dynamics of such agents remain difficult to observe, analyze, and compare in a systematic manner. To address this limitation, we present AgentSec, a curated dataset of structured agent interaction traces designed to support the analysis of agent-level reasoning and action behaviors. The dataset consists of 30 deterministic and non-redundant scenario instances, each capturing a complete agent interaction session under a fixed and validated schema. Quantitatively, the 30 released sessions comprise 67 decision nodes and 45 tool calls (73.3% successful), with provenance graphs exhibiting an average depth of 4.53 (max 7) and a maximum branching factor of 3. Scenarios are organized according to a predefined taxonomy of agent behavioral patterns, including tool success and failure modes, fallback strategies, memory conflicts and overwrites, decision rollbacks, and provenance branching structures. Each scenario encodes a distinct analytical case rather than a parametric variation, enabling focused and interpretable study of agent decision-making processes. AgentSec provides detailed records of decision traces, tool calls, memory updates, and provenance relations, and is intended to facilitate reproducible research on agent behavior analysis, auditing, and evaluation. The dataset is released alongside its schema, scenario manifest, and validation tooling to support reuse and extension by the research community. Rather than serving as a large-scale performance benchmark, AgentSec is explicitly designed as a diagnostic and unit-test suite for auditing agent-level reasoning logic and provenance consistency under controlled structural conditions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hmimou et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: