Risk Evaluation · Benchmark
SHADE-Arena: Evaluating sabotage and monitoring in LLM agents
NUWA research note · independent review pending
NUWA Research Note
Research questionDesign and assumptionsSource findingsNUWA interpretationLimits and contrary evidenceResearch and decision relevanceInstitutions and rolesOriginal resourcesModel-assisted reading · Selected sections of the original full text or official article; a complete section-by-section audit remains pending.
At a glance
NUWA interpretation: monitoring quality is an operating-point trade-off, not a single detection percentage.
Research question
Can monitors catch sabotage hidden inside otherwise legitimate tool-using tasks?
Design and assumptions
Self-contained environments give an agent a legitimate task and a covert side task; a separate monitor judges the resulting behavior.

Source findings
The best tested monitor, Gemini 2.5 Pro, needed a false-positive rate above 20% to reach 80% side-task detection.
Prompt changes and transcript fine-tuning sometimes improved monitoring (Results).
NUWA interpretation
NUWA interpretation: monitoring quality is an operating-point trade-off, not a single detection percentage.
Limits and contrary evidence
These are induced side tasks in simulations; the required false-positive rate was judged infeasible for real deployment by the authors.
Research and decision relevance
Model recommendation: retain true/false-positive operating points and distinguish induced sabotage from spontaneous behavior.
Precise source locations
- SHADE-Arena: Evaluating sabotage and monitoring in LLM agents · SHADE-ArenaSelected original resource https://www.anthropic.com/research/shade-arena-sabotage-monitoring; sha256:0a989a6b3149554677b8b01058a0d2b97da95a26b0063898bfa438824d8ed08d; archived source capture; exact capture time not independently established
- SHADE-Arena: Evaluating sabotage and monitoring in LLM agents · ResultsSelected original resource https://www.anthropic.com/research/shade-arena-sabotage-monitoring; sha256:0a989a6b3149554677b8b01058a0d2b97da95a26b0063898bfa438824d8ed08d; archived source capture; exact capture time not independently established
- SHADE-Arena: Evaluating sabotage and monitoring in LLM agents · ConclusionsSelected original resource https://www.anthropic.com/research/shade-arena-sabotage-monitoring; sha256:0a989a6b3149554677b8b01058a0d2b97da95a26b0063898bfa438824d8ed08d; archived source capture; exact capture time not independently established
Source checking, extraction, editorial approval and replication are recorded separately. Methodology →
Institutions and roles
Evaluation protocols
Cite and reuse
Cite the original publication for its findings. Cite this NUWA record separately for its explanation and retained snapshot.
Original publication · BibTeX
@misc{shade-arena,
title = {SHADE-Arena: Evaluating sabotage and monitoring in LLM agents},
url = {https://www.anthropic.com/research/shade-arena-sabotage-monitoring},
year = {2025},
date = {2025-06-16},
version = {Anthropic research article 2025-06-16},
note = {Anthropic research article 2025-06-16}
}
NUWA record · BibTeX
@misc{shade-arena-nuwa,
title = {SHADE-Arena: Evaluating sabotage and monitoring in LLM agents — NUWA research record},
url = {https://whitzard.tech/en/nuwa/whitzard-index/work/shade-arena/},
version = {2026-10-29.1},
organization = {NUWA Frontier AI Safety Lab},
howpublished = {Retained note edition: https://whitzard.tech/nuwa/whitzard-index/data/record-editions/2026-10-29.1--shade-arena.json},
note = {NUWA research note. Source-reading scope and independent review status are stated on the record. Snapshot 2026-10-29.1. Retained note edition: https://whitzard.tech/nuwa/whitzard-index/data/record-editions/2026-10-29.1--shade-arena.json.}
}
Evidence snapshot 2026-10-29.1 · Index updates · RSS
References
- [1] SHADE-Arena: Evaluating sabotage and monitoring in LLM agents. 2025-06-16 ; Official publication masthead and article byline; SHADE-Arena; Results
- [2] SHADE-Arena: Evaluating sabotage and monitoring in LLM agents. 2025-06-16