Explore/benchmark/Specification-Driven Development Benchmark: Security Knowledge Transition
S

Oleg Grynets, Andrii Salyk, Vasyl Lyashkevych, Oleh Kaskun, Danyil Zhuravchak/Specification-Driven Development Benchmark: Security Knowledge TransitionUnknown

AI-assisted software development is shifting from isolated code completion toward specification-driven generation, where business requirements, technical specifications, and acceptance criteria become operational input for LLM-based development agents. This shift creates a security problem: functional behavior is described explicitly, while security behavior remains implicit, generic, or postponed to post-generation review, causing generated systems to satisfy visible functional requirements while failing to preserve authorization rules, ownership boundaries, input validation, token rejection, sensitive data handling, and abuse-case semantics. This paper proposes a security knowledge operationalization approach for AI-assisted specification-driven development, combining two contributions: a Multilayer Specification Security Model that represents security knowledge through traceable relations between system entities, threats, risks, requirements, implementation rules, controls, verification scenarios, and evidence; and a Security Knowledge Transition Method that transforms business and technical specifications into a validated security-enriched generation contract. We evaluate the approach through two empirical studies: a hidden-oracle study assessing whether an LLM-based pipeline can derive a structured security model from system context, and a backend generation study under three conditions: no explicit security requirements, ASVS-conditioned generation, and Multilayer Security Model conditioning. Evaluated against a hidden 221-test black-box API suite, modal failures decreased from 50 in the baseline to 42 with ASVS and 36 with the Multilayer Security Model, with the strongest improvements in application-specific categories such as business logic and admin safety.

benchmark
GitHubCompare
Refreshed 23h ago
OverviewActivity52wAlternativesDocs
Stars0
Forks0
HF Downloads—30d
Last commit—
Refreshed23h ago
Project healthUnknownNo activity data.
Production readinessResearch / EarlyBest for exploration and prototyping.
Risk notesUnknown licenseVerify license before production use.
AgentHub Score
48 / 100
Composite score from 6 signals. How we score →
Active project
48Score
Growth
40C
Activity
30C
Documentation
70C+
Maturity
45C
Community
42C
Production
58C
GitHub stars · 90 days0 +0.0%
30d90d1y
latest release
Commit activity · 52 weeksActive contributor activity
LowHigh
JunSepDecMarNow
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—

AgentHub Score

48
Score 48/100
Below average

Alternatives

C
crewai
26.1k · Multi-Agent
87
A
autogen
42.7k · Multi-Agent
71
S
smolagents
11.2k · Coding
84
O
openai-agents-python
9.4k · Multi-Agent
81
Compare all →

Recent activity

Latest commit ——
Indexed by AgentHub crawler23h ago
Monitor for new releasesongoing