Skip to content
Sprint projectOct 25, 2026Online (Athens)

Crow: Monitoring the Whole Workspace for Covert Channels Between Colluding Coding Agents

Ermal Mateli

Submitted to AI Collusion Research Sprint. Sprint projects are early-stage work by participants, not Apart Research publications.

Read the report

Report: Crow: Monitoring the Whole Workspace for Covert Channels Between Colluding Coding Agents

Presentation

Presentation: Crow: Monitoring the Whole Workspace for Covert Channels Between Colluding Coding Agents

Code (opens in new tab)
Share

AI agents that share a workspace can pass hidden messages through anything one of them writes and another reads. A monitor that reads only the declared message channel cannot see those paths. We built Crow, a monitor for minimal coding harnesses that watches the whole workspace, scores every channel at each handoff, and can seal channels by rewriting what the next agent sees into a canonical form. In 255 episodes, colluding agents had to pass 1, 8 or 32 random bits while an auditor read their handoff note. They almost never used side channels: with every path open, 48 of 50 used steganography inside files the receiver reads anyway, mostly in whitespace. Sealing removed those formatting channels at no measured cost to honest work, but colluders who knew about it moved the bits into what the code does, kept 73 to 84% of channel capacity, and became harder to catch. A monitor reading the agents' commands and written files detected collusion best (AUROC 0.89); Crow's equal-weight score reached 0.66. Steganography in code semantics remains an open channel.

Reviews

Judging this Sprint?

Review “Crow: Monitoring the Whole Workspace for Covert Channels Between Colluding Coding Agents”

Your public critique appears on the project page without your name. Reviews of strong projects are shared with funders, as you choose below.

Not shown on the project page.

Shown on the project page, without your name.

Only the Apart team reads this, and funders if you agree below.

Decline to score

Only when the quality of the writing makes the work impossible to follow. Say why in your private critique; the project page shows only that a judge declined, not why.

How much would this matter for the field if it worked? How innovative is it? For scores of 4-5: is this actually new to the field, or replicating recent work?

Scoring guide
  1. 1Negligible. No clear problem addressed, or no meaningful novelty.
  2. 2Limited. Addresses a real problem but with a generic or well-trodden approach. Incremental at best.
  3. 3Moderate. Clear problem with a reasonable approach; some novelty in framing or method beyond routine application of existing tools.
  4. 4Significant. Important problem with an original approach, or identifies a neglected problem area. A valuable contribution others could build on.
  5. 5Exceptional. Tackles a critical problem with a genuinely novel approach, or opens a new research direction. Clear theory of change. You'd be excited to share this with researchers in the area.

How sound are methodology, implementation, and findings?

Scoring guide
  1. 1Seriously flawed. Methodology broken, results uninterpretable, or implementation doesn't work.
  2. 2Weak. Approach has significant gaps: missing validation, flawed experimental design, or incomplete implementation.
  3. 3Competent. Technically solid given the short duration. Methodology makes sense, results are interpretable, limitations acknowledged, work builds toward clear conclusions.
  4. 4Strong. Thorough methodology with convincing validation. Results clearly support conclusions. Immediately useful for future work.
  5. 5Exceptional. Ambitious scope executed rigorously. Surprising findings, novel methods, or unusually robust validation.

How clearly are work, findings, and impact potential communicated?

Scoring guide
  1. 1Incomprehensible. Cannot determine what the project is actually claiming or doing.
  2. 2Hard to follow. Key information buried, missing, or diluted by excessive length. Significant effort to extract main points.
  3. 3Clear enough. Can understand the problem, approach, and results without undue effort. Core content clearly present: problem, method, findings, limitations.
  4. 4Well presented. Easy to follow, well-structured, appropriate level of detail. Target audience would get it quickly.
  5. 5Exceptionally clear. A pleasure to read. Complex ideas made accessible. Could serve as a model for how to present this type of work.
Sharing your name *

When we share a strong project with funders, your name, scores and public critique go with it, confidentially; this choice is only about whether your name is public. If you think this project deserves funding, please also endorse it: that carries the most weight.

Share my private critique with funders *

See our Privacy Policy.

No public critique yet.

Cite this project

@misc{mateli2026crow,
  title = {{Crow: Monitoring the Whole Workspace for Covert Channels Between Colluding Coding Agents}},
  author = {Ermal Mateli},
  year = {2026},
  month = oct,
  note = {Submitted to AI Collusion Research Sprint, an Apart Research Sprint},
  howpublished = {\url{https://apartresearch.com/sprints/projects/crow-monitoring-the-whole-workspace-for-covert-channels-between-colluding-coding-agents-0e4j}},
  url = {https://apartresearch.com/sprints/projects/crow-monitoring-the-whole-workspace-for-covert-channels-between-colluding-coding-agents-0e4j}
}