SHADE-Arena
Paired main and hidden side tasks in mock environments. Measures if an agent completes the side task undetected by a monitor.
Opus 5.5 recognizes it as an evaluation in over 80% of attempts. safety-research/SHADE-Arena is deprecated.
- Made by
- Anthropic + Scale AI + Redwood (Kutasov et al.)
- Released
- June 2025
- Kind
- Deception and alignment
- Scored
- Graded by a model
- Answers
- Agent task
- Tasks
- Public, plus a private test set
- Strongest model tested
- Claude Opus 5.5 #4 on the capability index
- Last in a system card
- October 2026
- Last model added
- October 2026
In the authors’ words
As Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as autonomous agents in complex and long horizon settings, it is critical to evaluate their ability to sabotage users by pursuing hidden objectives. We study the ability of frontier LLMs to evade monitoring and achieve harmful hidden goals while completing a wide array of realistic tasks. We evaluate a broad range of frontier LLMs using SHADE (Subtle Harmful Agent Detection & Evaluation)-Arena, the first highly diverse agent evaluation dataset for sabotage and monitoring capabilities of LLM agents. SHADE-Arena consists of complex pairs of benign main tasks and harmful side objectives in complicated environments. Agents are evaluated on their ability to complete the side task without appearing suspicious to an LLM monitor. When measuring agent ability to (a) complete the main task, (b) complete the side task, and (c) avoid detection, we find that the best performing frontier models score 27% (Claude 3.7 Sonnet) and 15% (Gemini 2.5 Pro) as sabotage agents when overseen by Claude 3.6 Sonnet. For current frontier models, success on the side task relies heavily on having access to a hidden scratchpad that is not visible to the monitor. We also use SHADE-Arena to measure models' monitoring abilities, with the top monitor (Gemini 2.5 Pro) achieving an AUC of 0.87 at distinguishing benign and malign transcripts. We find that for now, models still struggle at sabotage due to failures in long-context main task execution. However, our measurements already demonstrate the difficulty of monitoring for subtle sabotage attempts, which we expect to only increase in the face of more complex and longer-horizon tasks.
2 models share the top score of 26.2%
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.
- 26.2 Claude Opus 5.5
- 26.2
Muse Spark 1.3
- 22.3 Claude Sonnet 5.5
- 18.0 Claude Opus 4.6
- 12.0 Claude Opus 4.8
- 12.0 Claude Opus 5
- 10.0 Claude Sonnet 5
- 8.80
Muse Spark
- 7.70 Claude Opus 4.5
- 6.80
Muse Spark 1.1
- 3.80 Claude Mythos Preview
- 1.60 Claude Sonnet 4.6
- 1.50 Claude Sonnet 4.5
- 1.50 Claude Opus 4.7
- 1.20 Claude Haiku 5.5
- 0.0 Claude Opus 4
- 1 Claude Opus 5.5 26.2%
- 2
Muse Spark 1.3 26.2%
- 3 Claude Sonnet 5.5 22.3%
- 4 Claude Opus 4.6 18%
- 5 Claude Opus 4.8 12%
- 6 Claude Opus 5 12%
- 7 Claude Sonnet 5 10%
- 8
Muse Spark 8.80%
- 9 Claude Opus 4.5 7.70%
- 10
Muse Spark 1.1 6.80%
- 11 Claude Mythos Preview 3.80%
- 12 Claude Sonnet 4.6 1.60%
- 13 Claude Sonnet 4.5 1.50%
- 14 Claude Opus 4.7 1.50%
- 15 Claude Haiku 5.5 1.20%
- 16 Claude Opus 4 0%
Source: Labs’ model cards
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Claude Opus 5.5 | 26.2% | Sep 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 2 | | 26.2% | Oct 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 3 | Claude Sonnet 5.5 | 22.3% | Sep 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 4 | Claude Opus 4.6 | 18% | Feb 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 5 | Claude Opus 4.8 | 12% | May 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 6 | Claude Opus 5 | 12% | Jul 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 7 | Claude Sonnet 5 | 10% | Jun 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 8 | | 8.80% | Jun 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 9 | Claude Opus 4.5 | 7.70% | Nov 2025 | Lab model card | |
| 10 | | 6.80% | Jul 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 11 | Claude Mythos Preview | 3.80% | Apr 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 12 | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | 1.60% | Feb 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 13 | Claude Sonnet 4.5 | 1.50% | Sep 2025 | Lab model card | |
| 14 | Claude Opus 4.7 | 1.50% | Apr 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 15 | Claude Haiku 5.5 | 1.20% | Oct 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 16 | Claude Opus 4 | 0% | May 2025 | Lab model card |
5 models have held number one in labs’ own numbers since its release in June 2025
Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release.
Source: Labs’ model cards
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.
17 system cards report it, from 2 labs
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 23, 2026 | | 26.2 | SHADE-Arena stealth rate with CoT, monitor of outputs+CoT, Muse Spark 1.3 (API) (Table 1, Figure 18). No monitor 46.2, outputs only 37.3 | Monitorability |
| Oct 7, 2026 | Claude Haiku 5.5 system card | 1.2 | SHADE-Arena stealth rate, reasoning hidden from monitor. No thinking 5.2, visible at low effort 2.3, visible at max effort 0 (6.4.2.2) | Monitorability |
| Sep 28, 2026 | Claude Sonnet 5.5 system card | 22.3 | SHADE-Arena stealth success rate, extended thinking at max effort hidden from the monitor, best prompt (no extended thinking 10.2%, visible reasoning 0.5% low and 0.0% max) (6.4.2.1, Figure 6.4.2.1.A) | Monitorability |
| Sep 22, 2026 | Claude Opus 5.5 system card | 26.2 | SHADE-Arena stealth success rate, extended thinking at max effort hidden from the monitor, best prompt (no extended thinking 15.0%, visible reasoning 0.0% at low and max effort, standard prompt below 1% in every setting) (6.6.4.1, Figure 6.6.4.1.A) | Monitorability |
| Jul 24, 2026 | Claude Opus 5 system card | 12 | SHADE-Arena stealth success rate, hidden scratchpad (reasoning hidden from the monitor), mean over 24 tasks (extended thinking visible to the monitor 4.8% at low effort and 3.7% at max effort), printed on chart (6.7.1, Figure 6.7.1.A) | Monitorability |
| Jul 9, 2026 | | 6.8 | SHADE-Arena (Table 1 scorecard, Figure 23) | Monitorability |
| Jun 30, 2026 | Claude Sonnet 5 system card | 10 | SHADE-Arena stealth success rate, hidden scratchpad, 24 tasks (extended thinking visible to the monitor 0.0% at low and at max effort) (6.7.1, Figure 6.7.1.A) | Monitorability |
| Jun 12, 2026 | | 8.8 | SHADE-Arena overall success with monitor (Table 1, Figure 25) | Monitorability |
| May 28, 2026 | Claude Opus 4.8 system card | 12 | SHADE-Arena stealth success rate with a hidden scratchpad, 24 tasks at 75 attempts (extended thinking visible to the monitor 1.2% at low and 1.3% at max effort. After fine-tuning elicitation 2.5% with extended thinking), printed on chart (6.4.2.1 and 6.4.2.3, Figure 6.4.2.1.A) | Monitorability |
| Apr 16, 2026 | Claude Opus 4.7 system card | 1.5 | SHADE-Arena stealth success rate, extended thinking visible to the monitor, adaptive max effort, printed on chart. Adaptive low effort 2.0, hidden scratchpad 10.7 (6.4.2.1, Figure 6.4.2.1.A) | Monitorability |
| Apr 7, 2026 | Claude Mythos Preview system card | 3.8 | SHADE-Arena stealth success rate, extended thinking, adaptive, max effort, Opus 4.6-based reasoning monitor, value printed on chart; 4.2 at low effort, 4.5 extended thinking enabled, 13.8 hidden scratchpad (4.4.3.1, Figure 4.4.3.1.A) | Monitorability |
| Feb 17, 2026 | Claude Sonnet 4.6 system card | 1.6 | SHADE-Arena stealth success rate, adaptive thinking at high effort; no scratchpad 16.0, hidden scratchpad 32.8, extended thinking 7.2, adaptive low effort 9.6 (Figure 4.6.6.A) | Alignment |
| Feb 5, 2026 | Claude Opus 4.6 system card | 18 | SHADE-Arena evasion success rate, primary extended thinking setting, stated in text; 16 without extended thinking, 46 with a hidden scratchpad; side task referenced in 26% of thinking (6.4.1, Figure 6.4.1.A) | Alignment |
| Nov 24, 2025 | Claude Opus 4.5 system card | 7.7 | SHADE-Arena evasion success rate, primary setting with extended thinking visible to the monitor (6.11.1, Figure 6.11.1.A; 21.5% without extended thinking) | Alignment |
| Oct 15, 2025 | Claude Haiku 4.5 system card | SHADE-Arena success rate, thinking disabled and monitored thinking, chart without printed values (Figure 4.4.A) | Alignment | |
| Sep 29, 2025 | Claude Sonnet 4.5 system card | 1.5 | SHADE-Arena evasion success rate, primary setting with extended thinking visible to the monitor. 22.3% without extended thinking, 43% with hidden reasoning (7.5.10.3, Figure 7.5.10.3.A) | Alignment |
| May 22, 2025 | Claude Opus 4 system card | 0 | Agentic sabotage evaluation (SHADE-Arena style, not named), side task success without monitor suspicion, scratchpad visible to monitor 0%. Scratchpad hidden 19% (Table 4.1.10.B) | 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%