Paper detail

CHASE: LLM Agents for Dissecting Malicious PyPI Packages

Modern software package registries like PyPI have become critical infrastructure for software development, but are increasingly exploited by threat actors distributing malicious packages with sophisticated multi-stage attack chains. While Large Language Models (LLMs) offer promising capabilities for automated code analysis, their application to security-critical malware detection faces fundamental challenges, including hallucination and context confusion, which can lead to missed detections or false alarms. We present CHASE (Collaborative Hierarchical Agents for Security Exploration), a high-reliability multi-agent architecture that addresses these limitations through a Plan-and-Execute coordination model, specialized Worker Agents focused on specific analysis aspects, and integration with deterministic security tools for critical operations. Our key insight is that reliability in LLM-based security analysis emerges not from improving individual model capabilities but from architecting systems that compensate for LLM weaknesses while leveraging their semantic understanding strengths. Evaluation on a dataset of 3,000 packages (500 malicious, 2,500 benign) demonstrates that CHASE achieves 98.4% recall with only 0.08% false positive rate, while maintaining a practical median analysis time of 4.5 minutes per package, making it suitable for operational deployment in automated package screening. Furthermore, we conducted a survey with cybersecurity professionals to evaluate the generated analysis reports, identifying their key strengths and areas for improvement. This work provides a blueprint for building reliable AI-powered security tools that can scale with the growing complexity of modern software supply chains. Our project page is available at https://t0d4.github.io/CHASE-AIware25/

preprint2026arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.