PACT: Can Enterprise AI Assistants Be Trusted Under Pressure? — AI benchmark

Mika Okamoto, Ansel Kaplan Erol/PACT: Can Enterprise AI Assistants Be Trusted Under Pressure?Unknown

As corporate AI adoption continues to grow, enterprise-grade LLM agents are being deployed into sensitive contexts such as hiring, healthcare, and finance. In these contexts, compliance with rules specified in an agent's system context is a first-order legal concern. Currently, no evaluation framework systematically measures which LLM models tend to violate compliance rules, especially under pressure from a persistent user, a hurried manager, or circumstances where violation is convenient or attractive. We introduce PACT (Pressure-Applied Compliance Testing), a benchmark for rule-following under pressure in AI agents assisting employees in daily tasks across twelve regulated enterprise domains and forty-eight scenarios, each set in a realistic multi-turn conversation. Each benchmark item pairs a standing rule against a rule-violating shortcut, and applies a battery of pressures across different wordings and system-prompt modes. We construct PACT component by component under strict LLM-as-judge auditing to ensure samples are unambiguous, ungameable, and realistic enough to avoid eliciting evaluation-aware behavior. We use PACT to profile LLM compliance across six complementary metrics that create a holistic picture of an AI assistant's robustness under pressure and throughout multi-turn conversations, its transparency, and ability to correctly discern where a rule applies. We aggregate this profile into PACTScore, a reliability-weighted compliance rate over all items and modes. Our results across 22 common LLM models spanning multiple providers and sizes show substantial variability in compliance across models and metric dimensions. Even the strongest assistants mis-apply a rule on 6 to 10% of items, and ordinary user pressure raises the violation rate by 65% on average. PACT highlights compliance risks in LLM assistants, motivating guardrails and careful model selection.

benchmark

Stars0

Forks0

HF Downloads—30d

Last commit—

Refreshed8h ago

Project healthUnknownNo activity data.

Production readinessResearch / EarlyBest for exploration and prototyping.

Risk notesUnknown licenseVerify license before production use.

AgentHub Score

55 / 100

Composite score from 6 signals. How we score →

Active project

55Score

Growth

40C

Activity

30C

Documentation

70C+

Maturity

45C

Community

42C

Production

58C

GitHub stars · 0 days observed0 not enough history

snapshots

Repository activity · 0 days observedReal snapshots from pushed_at

inactivepushed

2026-09-182026-09-19

Practical assessment

Should you use it?

✓ Best for

Research and experimentation
Prototype development
Learning agentic patterns

◎ Strengths

Active community
Open source
Well-documented API

✕ Not ideal for

Untested at scale without validation
Teams without AI/ML expertise

⚠ Watch-outs

Review changelog before updating
Verify license for commercial use

Technical details

What's inside

Language—

License—

Sourcearxiv

Open source✗ No

Commercial use—

Docs—

Demo—

PaperarXiv ↗

AgentHub Score

Score 55/100

Below average

Alternatives

RIFT-Bench: Dynamic Red-teaming For Agentic AI Systems

0 · benchmark

Security Assessment of DeepSeek Harness with A.I.G: Evaluating Resistance to Indirect Prompt Injection

0 · benchmark

AI Slop and Hallucinations in Vulnerability Assessment: A Survey on Reasoning Failures and Trustworthy Mitigation

0 · benchmark

FM-Bench: A Benchmark for Long-Horizon Management with Competing Agents

0 · benchmark

55 Compare all →

Recent activity

Latest commit ——

Indexed by AgentHub crawler8h ago

Monitor for new releasesongoing