<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Tool Misuse on Stack Research</title><link>https://stackresearch.org/tags/tool-misuse/</link><description>Recent content in Tool Misuse on Stack Research</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en-us</language><lastBuildDate>Sun, 15 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://stackresearch.org/tags/tool-misuse/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>A Real ASI02 Gap Caught Before Shipping</title><link>https://stackresearch.org/research/a-real-asi02-gap-we-caught-before-shipping/</link><pubDate>Sun, 15 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://stackresearch.org/research/a-real-asi02-gap-we-caught-before-shipping/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;A useful security test does not need drama. Sometimes it only needs to put the wrong sentence in the right field and wait to see where the sentence travels.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;During development of an agent catalog, one adversarial test exposed that kind of quiet failure. A support workflow accepted an issue summary, classified it, routed it, and drafted a reply. The ordinary functional tests passed. The deterministic path passed. The local LLM path passed. The workflow produced coherent replies.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>