Skip to content
Apart Research
Apart Research
Contact us
Sprint projectSep 14, 2026Bogotá

Secure-maxxing.txt: A way for a website to say no to a misused agent

María José Beltrán Losada, Jairo Torregrosa, Maryury Alexandra Muñoz Burbano · Team Leviathan

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

Read the report

Report: Secure-maxxing.txt: A way for a website to say no to a misused agent

Open in a new tab (opens in new tab)
Recording (opens in new tab)Code (opens in new tab)More on huggingface.co (opens in new tab)
Share

One main problem Hugging Face's latest attack showed was the inefficient reaction time when AI agent attacks are driven at a larger scale. Then we developed a security.txt extension to identify as quickly as possible AI driven attack intrusions, combining state of art techniques summarized in easy-shorted timed integrations. Secure-maxxing.txt rests in three main pillars, “There are real consequences" (Humanity appeal), “Don’t be misaligned” (Incident report) and “This is NOT a trap” (Honeypot). The grade changed from 72 to 85 in 11 of 20 control runs and in none of the 20 treatment runs. Fifteen treatment runs submitted at least one accepted encrypted report, compared with none of the control runs. The importance of those findings rely on easy, short-time and scalable implementations on protecting data across the internet.

Reviews

Judging this Sprint?

Review “Secure-maxxing.txt: A way for a website to say no to a misused agent”

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 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.
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.

  1. The presentation made by AI could be made clearer; it seems to skip the important parts. There is novelty in adding the new technique to real-world applications. The main suggestion concerns the control. Serving no message at all means the comparison is between an intervention and silence, not between these pillars and a clear denial.

  2. This is an accessible defender-side intervention with a concrete controlled result: grade changes occurred in 11 of 20 control runs and none of 20 treatment runs. Scoring persisted database changes and accepted reports rather than relying solely on agent statements is a strength.

Cite this project

@misc{losada2026securemaxxingtxt,
  title = {{Secure-maxxing.txt: A way for a website to say no to a misused agent}},
  author = {María José Beltrán Losada and Jairo Torregrosa and Maryury Alexandra Muñoz Burbano},
  year = {2026},
  month = sep,
  note = {Submitted to AI Incident Response Sprint, an Apart Research Sprint},
  howpublished = {\url{https://apartresearch.com/sprints/projects/securemaxxingtxt-a-way-for-a-website-to-say-no-to-a-misused-agent-m23i}},
  url = {https://apartresearch.com/sprints/projects/securemaxxingtxt-a-way-for-a-website-to-say-no-to-a-misused-agent-m23i}
}

More from AI Incident Response Sprint

All 231 entriesBrowse all projects

Build something like this at the next Sprint

AI x Epistemics Research Sprint · Nov 13 - 15, 2026