Destructive actions (Anthropic)
Models continue real Claude Code transcripts cut just before a destructive action. Score is the rate of taking a destructive action.
Anthropic also reports how often models ask the user instead of acting. Tool results are simulated by another Claude model.
- Made by
- Anthropic
- Kind
- Deception and alignment
- Level
- Expert
- Scored
- Graded by a model
- Answers
- Agent task
- Tasks
- Kept private
- Strongest model tested
- Claude Opus 5.5 #4 on the capability index
- Last in a system card
- September 2026
- Last model added
- September 2026
Claude Opus 5.5 leads with 21%
Best score per model as labs report them in their own cards. Labs pick their own settings, so these compare less cleanly than independent runs.
- 1 Claude Opus 5.5 21%
Source: Labs’ model cards
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Claude Opus 5.5 | 21% | Sep 2026 | Lab model card |
Scores over time
All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.
Source: Labs’ model cards
Labs report it only in system cards
We read the headline results of 522 launch posts from 52 labs, and none of them list this benchmark. Some system cards do, below.
3 system cards report it, from 1 lab
Besides launch posts, we read the system cards, model cards and technical reports labs publish with a release. They report far more, including safety and frontier-risk tests.
| Date | Document | Score | As the document writes it | Section |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 22, 2026 | Claude Opus 5.5 system card | 21 | Destructive actions in Claude Code, destructive action rate when continuing real transcripts, lower is better (asked the user instead in 35%) (6.5.2, Figure 6.5.2.A) | Alignment |
| Apr 16, 2026 | Claude Opus 4.7 system card | Destructiveness evaluation by resampling Claude Code transcripts, clearly and borderline destructive rates on three prefill sources, chart without printed values (6.3.1.2, Figure 6.3.1.2.A) | Alignment | |
| Apr 7, 2026 | Claude Mythos Preview system card | Destructive behavior rate when resampling Claude Code transcripts, Opus 4.6 and Mythos Preview prefills, clearly and borderline destructive, chart without printed values (4.3.1.2, Figure 4.3.1.2.A) | Alignment |
More in Safety and alignment
- FORTRESS In use Paired adversarial and benign national-security misuse prompts. Rubric-graded risk score on adversarial and over-refusal score on benign prompts. Claude Opus 5.5 5.78%
- StrongREJECT In use Forbidden-prompt jailbreak benchmark with a rubric grader that scores how useful a non-refusal actually is.
Inkling 98.6% - Gray Swan IPI Arena benchmark In use Indirect prompt-injection attacks from public red-teaming competitions replayed on tool, coding and browser agents. Attack success rate at k attempts.
Gemini 4 Carbon 0% - DistressBench In use Models reply as a chatbot to 718 simulated users in psychological crisis, in single-turn and multi-turn chats. Three judge models score replies against clinician-written rubrics.
Muse Spark 1.2 88.4% - Lakera B3 (Backbone Breaker Benchmark) In use Crowdsourced prompt-injection attacks hit backbone LLMs inside agent threat snapshots at three defense levels. The score is attack resistance, 100 minus the board's vulnerability percentage. Claude Opus 4.5 89%
- IHEval In use Models face conflicts between system, user and tool instructions. Reports a composite score for following the higher-priority instruction. GPT-4o 70%