Add PerspectiveGap to the research catalogue

resources/papers.md

@@ -118,4 +118,15 @@ Each entry uses the repository metadata format: resource type, producer, source,
 - Last checked: 2026-07-24.
 - Limitations or caveats: Reported performance is based on the paper's experimental settings. Real-world effectiveness depends on deployment context, communication topology, threat model fit, and operational integration with runtime controls.
 
+### PerspectiveGap: A Benchmark for Multi-Agent Orchestration Prompting
+
+- Resource type: Academic benchmark paper and open dataset.
+- Producer or publisher: Sun et al., arXiv 2026.
+- Source link: <https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.08878> and <https://github.com/WhymustIhaveaname/PerspectiveGap>.
+- Relevance to agentic execution security: The first benchmark for multi-agent orchestration prompt writing measures whether each sub-agent receives only the information its role needs, making omissions and cross-role information leakage directly observable.
+- Coverage: Multi-agent orchestration, role-fragment assignment, prompt writing, information boundaries, 110 scenarios, 10 topologies, and 33 commercial models.
+- Evidence quality and maturity level: Emerging academic benchmark with public scenarios, deterministic scoring code, evaluation results, and a leaderboard.
+- Last checked: 2026-07-25.
+- Limitations or caveats: Evaluates prompt artefacts rather than downstream agent execution. It does not test tools, credentials, memory, or whether prompt-boundary errors cause production task failures.
+
 <!-- markdownlint-enable MD013 -->

rubrics/scoresheets/resource-perspectivegap.md

@@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
+---
+rubric: resource-quality-rubric.md
+artefact: PerspectiveGap: A Benchmark for Multi-Agent Orchestration Prompting
+artefact_url_or_path: https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.08878
+artefact_version: arXiv:2606.08878 and public repository as checked on 2026-07-25
+last_checked: 2026-07-25
+scored_by: WhymustIhaveaname
+scored_on: 2026-07-25
+rater_count: 1
+---
+
+## Scores
+
+| Criterion | Score (0–3) | Evidence | Notes |
+|---|---:|---|---|
+| Relevance to agentic AI security | 2 | Sections 3 and 6 define role-specific information boundaries and measure both distractor leakage and broader out-of-role leakage across multi-agent orchestration prompts. | Directly addresses information exposure between sub-agent roles, but does not evaluate deployed tools, credentials, memory, or runtime controls. |
+| Evidence-based claims | 3 | Sections 3 and 5 specify 110 scenarios across 10 topologies, two task formats, deterministic metrics, and 14,520 evaluations over 33 commercial models. The public repository contains the scenarios, scoring code, and results. | Quantitative claims are tied to released benchmark artefacts and explicit scoring rules. |
+| Clarity and editorial quality | 2 | The paper separates role-fragment assignment from free-form prompt writing, defines strict pass and partial-credit diagnostics, and explains why leakage rates may exceed 100%. | The benchmark is clearly structured, although some metric details require careful reading. |
+| Recency and ongoing relevance | 3 | The paper and public benchmark were released in 2026, and the repository exposes current data, evaluation code, and leaderboard links. | Current work on multi-agent orchestration and context boundaries. |
+| Transparency of limitations | 2 | The Limitations section states that the benchmark covers 10 topologies rather than all orchestration patterns, evaluates prompt artefacts rather than downstream execution, lacks external annotator-agreement measurements, and may penalise some paraphrases. | Specific scope boundaries are stated, but downstream security consequences are not measured. |
+
+## Aggregate
+
+- Raw total: **12 / 15**
+- Floor rule triggered: no
+- Verdict: **Include**
+
+## Reviewer commentary
+
+PerspectiveGap provides a concrete way to inspect information boundaries in multi-agent orchestration prompts, with public scenarios and deterministic scoring. Its security value is diagnostic rather than end-to-end: it exposes omissions and cross-role leakage at the handoff artefact, but does not test whether those errors produce unsafe downstream actions. The catalogue entry should retain that boundary explicitly.