Is Vibe Coding Safe? Benchmarking Vulnerability of Agent-Generated Code in Real-World Tasks
Songwen Zhao, Danqing Wang, Kexun Zhang, Jiaxuan Luo, Zhuo Li, Lei Li
Abstract
Vibe coding is a new software development paradigm in which human engineers prompt a large language model (LLM) agent to complete complex coding tasks with little supervision. Although vibe coding is increasingly adopted, is the generated code really safe to deploy in production? To investigate this question, we propose SUSVIBES, a benchmark consisting of 186 feature-request software engineering tasks from real-world open-source projects, for which human programmers committed vulnerable implementations. We evaluate 12 widely used coding agentic settings with frontier models on the benchmark. Disturbingly, all agents perform poorly in terms of software security. Although 57% of the solutions from SWE-Agent with Claude 4 Sonnet are functionally correct, only 11.8% are secure. Further experiments demonstrate that preliminary security strategies, such as augmenting the feature request with vulnerability hints, cannot mitigate these security issues. Our findings raise serious concerns about the widespread adoption of vibe coding, particularly in security-sensitive applications. The code and dataset are available at https://github.com/LeiLiLab/susvibes. The leaderboard is at https://leililab.github.io/ susvibes-leaderboard.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 8b6e4924-d343-4971-889a-22e4a4040540Cited by top-tier papers2
- GoodVibe: Security-by-Vibe for LLM-Based Code GenerationMaximilian Thang, Lichao Wu, Sasha Behrouzi, Mohamadreza Rostami et al.USENIX Security 2026 · 6 citations
- SecureVibeBench: Benchmarking Secure Vibe Coding of AI Agents via Reconstructing Vulnerability-Introducing ScenariosJunkai Chen, Huihui Huang, Yunbo Lyu, Junwen An et al.ACL 2026 · 5 citations
Builds on14
- SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-world Github Issues?Carlos E. Jimenez, John Yang, Alexander Wettig, Shunyu Yao et al.ICLR 2024 · 2,082 citations
- SWE-agent: Agent-Computer Interfaces Enable Automated Software EngineeringJohn Yang, Carlos E. Jimenez, Alexander Wettig, Kilian Lieret et al.NeurIPS 2024 · 2,059 citations
- Asleep at the Keyboard? Assessing the Security of GitHub Copilot's Code ContributionsHammond Pearce, Baleegh Ahmad, Benjamin Tan, Brendan Dolan-Gavitt et al.S&P 2022 · 725 citations
- SWE-RL: Advancing LLM Reasoning via Reinforcement Learning on Open Software EvolutionYuxiang Wei, Olivier Duchenne, Jade Copet, Quentin Carbonneaux et al.NeurIPS 2025 · 291 citations
- SWT-Bench: Testing and Validating Real-World Bug-Fixes with Code AgentsNiels Mündler, Mark Niklas Müller, Jingxuan He, Martin T. VechevNeurIPS 2024 · 172 citations
Related papers
- FeatureBench: Benchmarking Agentic Coding for Complex Feature DevelopmentQixing Zhou, Jiacheng Zhang, Haiyang Wang, Rui Hao et al.ICLR 2026 · 30 citations
- Training Language Models to Generate Quality Code with Program Analysis FeedbackFeng Yao, Zilong Wang, Liyuan Liu, Junxia Cui et al.NeurIPS 2025 · 11 citations
- Building Software by Rolling the Dice: A Qualitative Study of Vibe CodingYi-Hung Chou, Boyuan Jiang, Yi Wen Chen, Mingyue Weng et al.FSE 2026 · 1 citation
- SWE-IF: Aligning Code Evaluation with Human PreferenceMing Zhong, Xiang Zhou, Ting-Yun Chang, Qingze Wang et al.ICML 2026 · 3 citations
- SEC-bench: Automated Benchmarking of LLM Agents on Real-World Software Security TasksHwiwon Lee, Ziqi Zhang, Hanxiao Lu, Lingming ZhangNeurIPS 2025 · 86 citations
