<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Coding Agents on reSAID Lab</title><link>https://resaid-lab.github.io/categories/coding-agents/</link><description>Recent content in Coding Agents on reSAID Lab</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en-US</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Nov 2026 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://resaid-lab.github.io/categories/coding-agents/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>Coding Agents and Operational Safety</title><link>https://resaid-lab.github.io/projects/agentic-code-safety/</link><pubDate>Mon, 16 Nov 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://resaid-lab.github.io/projects/agentic-code-safety/</guid><description>&lt;h2 id="overview"&gt;Overview&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Autonomous coding agents built on large language models are wired directly into development workflows: they edit files, run commands, configure environments, and fix bugs with growing autonomy. Most safety evaluations of these tools focus on explicitly malicious prompts, but we argue this misses the larger and more common danger: agents that fail during ordinary, goal-directed work through destructive operations, constraint violations, authorization bypasses, and silent errors that surface only after damage is done.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>