Skip to content
Sprint projectMar 23, 2026Singapore

SecureBox: A Layered Control Protocol for Safe AI-Assisted Coding

Siddhanth Manoj , Satwikk, Sonali Moorthy · Team MNB

Submitted to AI Control Hackathon 2026. Sprint projects are early-stage work by participants, not Apart Research publications.

Read the report

Report: SecureBox: A Layered Control Protocol for Safe AI-Assisted Coding

Code (opens in new tab)
Share

With the proliferation of the capabilities and applicability of generative AI, the development of control protocols to combat systemic safety compromise is not trivial. Existing defenses like prompt-level safety instructions, single model oversight, and static policies are susceptible to workarounds, and fail to catch subtle contextual threats such as unsafe logic, stealthy backdoor insertion, and multi-step threat accumulation under the guise of intelligent prompting. In this project, we develop a security-focused AI coding pipeline designed to mitigate these issues through stratified control mechanisms. Our system combines a prompt refining module that structures and sanitizes user inputs, an advanced security agent that analyzes generated code and commands for potentially harmful behavior, and a benchmarking framework to evaluate the overall pipeline in comparison to popular models. We implement multiple protocols—including baseline, reprompting-only, security-only, and combined approaches—and test them on a curated dataset of both benign and adversarial tasks. Our results show that integrating prompt-level defenses with downstream security analysis can significantly reduce synthesis of unsafe outputs while maintaining strong task performance (e.g., X% reduction in unsafe actions with minimal drop in success rate). Overall, this work demonstrates the value of modular, defense-in-depth designs and provides a reproducible framework for evaluating safety–usefulness tradeoffs in AI-assisted software development.

Reviews

Judging this Sprint?

Review this project

Your public critique appears on this page without your name. Your private critique is not published; only the Apart team reads it. If you agree below, we share your review with grantmaking.ai (opens in new tab) and the Transformative AI Fund so strong projects can be funded.

Not shown on this page.

Shown on this page, without your name.

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

Share my name publicly on grantmaking.ai *
Share my private critique with funders *

How much would this matter for AI safety 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 AI safety 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.

  1. The defense-in-depth architecture is a reasonable design principle, and the session-level threat model (risk accumulating across actions rather than in single outputs) is worth stating. The ablation structure separating reprompting, security analysis, and the combined protocol is good experimental design.

    The evaluation would benefit from larger scale. It would also be valuable to evaluate the GNN-based structural risk analysis component specifically, the current ablation groups it with static analysis under "security agent," so its individual contribution isn't visible. Specifying the free parameter in the combined scoring metric and running threshold sensitivity analysis would further strengthen the claims.

  2. Super impressive project, but we need larger sample sizes to prove that this concept works.

Cite this project

@misc{manoj2026securebox,
  title = {{SecureBox: A Layered Control Protocol for Safe AI-Assisted Coding}},
  author = {Siddhanth Manoj and Satwikk and Sonali Moorthy},
  year = {2026},
  month = mar,
  note = {Submitted to AI Control Hackathon 2026, an Apart Research Sprint},
  howpublished = {\url{https://apartresearch.com/sprints/projects/securebox-a-layered-control-protocol-for-safe-aiassisted-coding-988z}},
  url = {https://apartresearch.com/sprints/projects/securebox-a-layered-control-protocol-for-safe-aiassisted-coding-988z}
}

Build something like this at the next Sprint

AI Collusion Research Sprint · Oct 23 - 25, 2026