How are you testing local coding-agent work gates against prompt injection?

Reddit r/AI_Agents News

Summary

A discussion about testing local coding-agent work gates against indirect prompt injection, focusing on evidence trust and verification challenges in agent workflows.

Hi all - I'm working on an open-source, local-first MCP/work-gate tool for coding agents and I'm trying to get sharper feedback from people building or using agent workflows. The problem I'm thinking about is indirect prompt injection and evidence trust. A local coding agent may ingest issues, PR text, docs, logs, dependency output, webpages, or MCP tool results. Even if the user is trusted, that input may not be. If the agent can then decide whether it satisfied its own gates, there are some awkward questions: \- What stops an injected instruction from convincing the agent to skip a review gate? \- What counts as real verification evidence versus a final-response claim? \- Should agent-supplied receipts be treated differently from independently fetched CI or attached evidence? \- What bypass paths would you test first? I'm not claiming prompts are a security boundary, and I'm not trying to replace sandboxing. I'm trying to make local agent workflow claims more honest before people lean on them too hard. I'll put the GitHub issue links in a comment to keep this from being a link-drop. Friendly pushback very welcome.
Original Article

Similar Articles

Coding Agents Won’t Be Won by Prompts, but by Runtime Infrastructure

Reddit r/AI_Agents

As coding agents become more capable, the bottleneck shifts from model quality to the infrastructure that supports long-running tasks, including durable state, permissions, checkpoints, observability, and cost controls. The author argues that the best agent products resemble runtime and workflow systems rather than just improved prompt interfaces.

Understanding prompt injections: a frontier security challenge

OpenAI Blog

OpenAI publishes guidance on prompt injection attacks, a social engineering vulnerability where malicious instructions hidden in web content or documents can trick AI models into unintended actions. The company outlines its multi-layered defense strategy including instruction hierarchy research, automated red-teaming, and AI-powered monitoring systems.