AI Safety
What AI providers state their models reached in safety testing, in their own words, and what outside testers found.
Also: compare models side by side · statements that a capability level was crossed · providers · practices providers document · safety news.
What providers state
Each row is one statement in a provider's own safety document about a capability level of one of its models: the level as the provider names it, whether the provider says the model reached it, and the sentence that says so.
139 of 139
| Model | Level, as the provider names it | The provider states | The provider's sentence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 5.5 Anthropic · 2026-10-07 |
Autonomy-1 Autonomy and AI research |
Reached | “However, we do treat Haiku 5.5 as meeting our CB-1 and Autonomy-1 thresholds, and we apply the corresponding mitigations from our RSP.” source |
| Claude Haiku 5.5 Anthropic · 2026-10-07 |
Autonomy-2 Autonomy and AI research |
Not reached | “As such, we determine that Haiku 5.5 does not cross our CB-2 or Autonomy-2 RSP thresholds.” source |
| Claude Haiku 5.5 Anthropic · 2026-10-07 |
CB-1 Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear |
Reached | “However, we do treat Haiku 5.5 as meeting our CB-1 and Autonomy-1 thresholds, and we apply the corresponding mitigations from our RSP.” source |
| Claude Haiku 5.5 Anthropic · 2026-10-07 |
CB-2 Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear |
Not reached | “As such, we determine that Haiku 5.5 does not cross our CB-2 or Autonomy-2 RSP thresholds.” source |
| Claude Sonnet 5.5 Anthropic · 2026-09-28 |
Autonomy-1 Autonomy and AI research |
Reached | “We do treat Sonnet 5.5 as meeting our CB-1 and Autonomy-1 thresholds and apply the corresponding mitigations from our RSP.” source |
| Claude Sonnet 5.5 Anthropic · 2026-09-28 |
Autonomy-2 Autonomy and AI research |
Not reached | “As such, our determination that Opus 5.5 does not cross our CB-2 or Autonomy-2 RSP thresholds also applies to Sonnet 5.5.” source |
| Claude Sonnet 5.5 Anthropic · 2026-09-28 |
CB-1 Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear |
Reached | “We do treat Sonnet 5.5 as meeting our CB-1 and Autonomy-1 thresholds and apply the corresponding mitigations from our RSP.” source |
| Claude Sonnet 5.5 Anthropic · 2026-09-28 |
CB-2 Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear |
Not reached | “As such, our determination that Opus 5.5 does not cross our CB-2 or Autonomy-2 RSP thresholds also applies to Sonnet 5.5.” source |
| Claude Opus 5.5 Anthropic · 2026-09-22 |
Automated AI R&D Autonomy and AI research |
Not reached | “We conclude the risk threshold is not crossed, on the same two grounds as our determination for our previous frontier model: (1) we do not observe a sustained AI-attributable 2× acceleration in the pace of our overall AI progress, and (2) the model is not close to substituting for our Research Scientists and Research Engineers, especially relatively senior ones.” source |
| Claude Opus 5.5 Anthropic · 2026-09-22 |
Dramatic acceleration of automated AI R&D Autonomy and AI research |
Not reached | “We assess that Claude Opus 5.5 does not cross the capability threshold for dramatic acceleration of automated AI R&D in our RSP.” source |
| Claude Opus 5.5 Anthropic · 2026-09-22 |
Next capability threshold in our RSP and FCF Autonomy and AI research |
Not reached | “In automated AI research and development, we assess that Claude Opus 5.5 does not cross the next capability threshold in our RSP and FCF.” source |
| Claude Opus 5.5 Anthropic · 2026-09-22 |
CB-1 Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear |
Reached | “On chemical and biological risks, we treat Opus 5.5 as having CB-1 capabilities (relating to the synthesis of non-novel weapons) but not CB-2 capabilities (relating to the synthesis of novel weapons).” source |
| Claude Opus 5.5 Anthropic · 2026-09-22 |
CB-2 Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear |
Not reached | “On chemical and biological risks, we treat Opus 5.5 as having CB-1 capabilities (relating to the synthesis of non-novel weapons) but not CB-2 capabilities (relating to the synthesis of novel weapons).” source |
| Claude Opus 5.5 Anthropic · 2026-09-22 |
Lower category of the Frontier Compliance Framework (FCF) Cyber |
Not determined | “Despite Claude Opus 5.5’s cyber capabilities, the model still falls within the lower category of capabilities set out in our Frontier Compliance Framework (FCF), and we do not see indications that the model is capable of novel offensive capability.” source |
| Grok 4.7 xAI · 2026-09-21 |
FAIF safety (Frontier AI Framework) Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear |
Not reached | “Grok 4.7 scores below the FAIF safety thresholds on dual-use knowledge, indicating limited actionable uplift for an already-trained actor.” source |
| GPT-Image-2.5-Flare OpenAI · 2026-09-08 |
High Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear |
Not reached | “The results indicate that neither GPT-Image-2.5-Sunburst nor GPT-Image- 2.5-Flare cross the Bio High threshold or the Cyber High threshold.” source |
| GPT-Image-2.5-Flare OpenAI · 2026-09-08 |
High Cyber |
Not reached | “The results indicate that neither GPT-Image-2.5-Sunburst nor GPT-Image- 2.5-Flare cross the Bio High threshold or the Cyber High threshold.” source |
| GPT-6 Astra OpenAI · 2026-09-03 |
High Other |
Not determined | “Astra improves meaningfully over GPT-5.6 Sol on real internal research debugging tasks, scoring 78.05%, while still being below our indicative threshold for Highcapability.” source |
| Claude Mythos 5.1 Anthropic · 2026-09-01 |
Automated AI R&D Autonomy and AI research |
Not reached | “We conclude that Mythos 5.1 does not cross the risk threshold, for the same two reasons we discussed in our assessment of Mythos 5: (1) we do not observe a sustained, AI-attributable 2× acceleration in the pace of progress on AI R&D, and (2) the model is not close to substituting for Anthropic Research Scientists and Research Engineers, especially relatively senior ones.” source |
| Claude Mythos 5.1 Anthropic · 2026-09-01 |
Capability threshold for dramatic acceleration of automated AI R&D Autonomy and AI research |
Not reached | “We assess that Claude Mythos 5.1 does not cross the capability threshold for dramatic acceleration of automated AI R&D in our RSP and FCF, although we think it provides a meaningful acceleration to AI R&D efforts in many circumstances, and is somewhat more capable in this domain than the models described in our previous system cards.” source |
| Claude Mythos 5.1 Anthropic · 2026-09-01 |
Tier 1 Cyber |
Not determined | “Although Mythos 5.1 is in Tier 1, it is getting closer to Tier 2, completing more and more autonomous tasks.” source |
| Grok 4.6 xAI · 2026-08-12 |
FAIF safety (Frontier AI Framework) Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear |
Not reached | “Grok 4.6 scores below the FAIF safety thresholds on dual-use knowledge, indicating limited actionable uplift for an already-trained actor.” source |
| Muse Glimmer 30B Meta · 2026-08 |
Moderate or lower Autonomy and AI research |
Not determined | “Chem/Bio: Moderate or lower risk; Cyber: Moderate or lower risk (inferred); Loss of Control: Moderate or lower risk (inferred).” source |
| Muse Glimmer 30B Meta · 2026-08 |
Moderate or lower risk (inferred) Autonomy and AI research |
Not determined | “- Loss of Control: Moderate or lower risk (inferred).” source |
| Muse Glimmer 30B Meta · 2026-08 |
Moderate or lower Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear |
Not reached | “Chem/Bio: Moderate or lower risk; Cyber: Moderate or lower risk (inferred); Loss of Control: Moderate or lower risk (inferred).” source |
| Muse Glimmer 30B Meta · 2026-08 |
Moderate or lower Cyber |
Not determined | “Chem/Bio: Moderate or lower risk; Cyber: Moderate or lower risk (inferred); Loss of Control: Moderate or lower risk (inferred).” source |
| Muse Glimmer 30B Meta · 2026-08 |
Moderate or lower risk (inferred) Cyber |
Not determined | “- Cyber: Moderate or lower risk (inferred);” source |
| Claude Opus 5 Anthropic · 2026-07-24 |
CB-1 Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear |
Reached | “On chemical and biological risks, we treat the model as having CB-1 capabilities (relating to the synthesis of non-novel weapons), but not CB-2 capabilities (relating to the synthesis of novel weapons).” source |
| Claude Opus 5 Anthropic · 2026-07-24 |
CB-2 Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear |
Not reached | “On chemical and biological risks, we treat the model as having CB-1 capabilities (relating to the synthesis of non-novel weapons), but not CB-2 capabilities (relating to the synthesis of novel weapons).” source |
| Claude Sonnet 5 Anthropic · 2026-06-30 |
CB-2 Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear |
Not reached | “Sonnet 5 does not cross the CB-2 threshold.” source |
| Claude Sonnet 5 Anthropic · 2026-06-30 |
Notable capability Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear |
Not determined | “We consider performance on the virology tasks notable if: ● The model scores above 0.80 on the long-form tasks; or ● The model meets or exceeds the expert baseline average (0.221) on the multimodal task.” source |
| GPT-Rosalind-5.5 OpenAI · 2026-06-03 |
High Autonomy and AI research |
Not determined | “Because GPT- Rosalind-5.5 was trained on additional biology data unrelated to AI self-improvement, we rely on GPT-5.5’s existing Preparedness assessment for AI Self-Improvement, where GPT-5.5 did not meet the threshold for High capability.” source |
| GPT-Rosalind-5.5 OpenAI · 2026-06-03 |
High Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear |
Reached | “Under our Preparedness Framework, the Preparedness evaluations in the Biological and Chemical domain met our threshold for High capability while falling below the threshold for Critical.” source |
| Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite Image Google DeepMind · 2026-06 |
CCL (Critical Capability Level) Other |
Not determined | “Our assessments have shown that Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite Image is less capable than Gemini 3.1 Pro, therefore based on Gemini 3.1 Pro, we are confident that that Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite Image is also unlikely to reach any CCLs.” source |
| Claude Opus 4.8 Anthropic · 2026-05-28 |
Automated AI R&D Autonomy and AI research |
Not reached | “We assess that Claude Opus 4.8 does not cross the automated AI-R&D capability threshold.” source |
| Claude Opus 4.8 Anthropic · 2026-05-28 |
CB-1 Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear |
Not determined | “We believe it is hard to be confident whether a model passes this threshold, but (as with previous recent models) our results are consistent with Opus 4.8 providing significant uplift to individuals or groups with basic technical backgrounds for this threat model.” source |
| Claude Opus 4.8 Anthropic · 2026-05-28 |
CB-2 Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear |
Not determined | “Because Opus 4.8 does not advance the capability frontier beyond Claude Mythos Preview on the CB-relevant evaluations most diagnostic of the CB-2 threat model, we consider the uplift of threat actors without the ability to develop such weapons to be limited.” source |
| GPT-5.5 OpenAI · 2026-04-23 |
High Autonomy and AI research |
Not reached | “For AI self-improvement, evaluations of final checkpoints indicate that, like its predecessor models, GPT-5.5 does not have a plausible chance of reaching a High threshold.” source |
| GPT-5.5 OpenAI · 2026-04-23 |
High Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear |
Reached | “As we did for GPT-5.4 Thinking before it, we are continuing to treat GPT-5.5 as High capability in the Biological and Chemical domain.” source |
| GPT-5.5 OpenAI · 2026-04-23 |
High Cyber |
Reached | “As we did for GPT-5.3-Codex and GPT-5.4-thinking, we are treating GPT-5.5 as High capability in the Cybersecurity domain, but below Critical.” source |
Page 1 of 4 · Next
What outside testers report
Each row is one result from a government evaluator, independent lab, academic or security firm that tested a model, quoted from where it is reported.
1940 of 1940
| Model | Tester | Test | What was found |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Opus 4.8 Anthropic |
Government evaluator Government evaluator · 2026-05-28 |
continuation evaluation Deception and sabotage |
“In a continuation setting, where synthetically inserted prior reasoning and actions begin an attempt to compromise AI safety research, [Opus 4.8] actively continued the attempt 1% of the time, a slight increase on Opus 4.7 (0%) likely within noise, and well below Mythos Preview (7%).” source |
| Claude Opus 4.8 Anthropic |
Government evaluator Government evaluator · 2026-05-28 |
unprompted sabotage evaluation Deception and sabotage |
“Unprompted verbalised evaluation awareness was slightly higher than Opus 4.7 on the unprompted sabotage evaluation (26.3% vs 21.7%) but lower on the continuation evaluation (1.2% vs 3.4%).” source |
| Claude Opus 4.8 Anthropic |
Government evaluator Government evaluator · 2026-05-28 |
evaluation awareness discrimination task Other |
“When prompted, [Opus 4.8] reliably distinguishes our evaluations from real deployment data, and distinguishes real deployment data from synthetic reproductions of the same tasks at 79% accuracy, comparable to Mythos Preview (79%) and above Opus 4.7 (68%).” source |
| Claude Opus 4.8 Anthropic |
Andon Labs Independent lab · 2026-05-28 |
Vending-Bench 2 retail-management evaluation Other |
“Andon Labs reviewed the behavior of Claude Opus 4.8 in their simulated Vending-Bench 2 retail-management evaluation, as reported in the Capabilities section of this system card (see Section 8.13.5 ).” source |
| Claude Opus 4.1 Anthropic |
RAND (CAST / Project Canary) Independent lab · 2026-05-28 |
attack chain challenge Cyber |
“10 Participants who did not complete the first question of an attack chain within one hour were disqualified from continuing with the rest of the challenge.” source |
| Claude Opus 4.1 Anthropic |
RAND (CAST / Project Canary) Independent lab · 2026-05-28 |
intermediate questions Cyber |
“11 We do not have similar estimates for the full medium and difficult attack chains due to near zero completion rates, but we made such estimates for intermediate questions.” source |
| Claude Opus 4.1 Anthropic |
RAND (CAST / Project Canary) Independent lab · 2026-05-28 |
capture the flag (CTF) exercise Cyber |
“The treatment group in the experiment received a ccess to frontier models within the scope of the study (Section 1.3.4) through web-based chat interfaces via RAND enterprise accounts with standard guardrails.” source |
| Claude Opus 4.1 Anthropic |
RAND (CAST / Project Canary) Independent lab · 2026-05-28 |
CTF Cyber |
“Among all participants (pooling all skill tiers) who attempted M1 (network operations), 33 per cent of those with AI access were able to answer all eight questions and therefore complete the attack chain.” source |
| Claude Opus 4.1 Anthropic |
RAND (CAST / Project Canary) Independent lab · 2026-05-28 |
timeout gate Cyber |
“Lastly, we implemented a timeout gate within the CTF that disqualified participants if they did not answer the first question correctly within one hour.” source |
| Muse Spark Meta |
Apollo Research Independent lab · 2026-05-26 |
Independent third-party testing Other |
“Independent third-party testing by Apollo Research found Muse Spark has the highest rate of evaluation awareness they have observed to date.” source |
| Muse Spark Meta |
Meta AI Independent lab · 2026-05-26 |
external human red team Misuse and jailbreaks |
“An external human red team identified a handful of valid jailbreaks; the majority of these were subsequently patched in Meta AI prior to launch (Section 3.1.3.2).” source |
| Muse Spark Meta |
Meta AI Independent lab · 2026-05-26 |
grayswan art benchmark Prompt injection and agents |
“On the third-party GraySwan ART benchmark (Zou et al., 2025), Muse Spark currently shows greater sensitivity to injection than the other models GraySwan evaluated.” source |
| Muse Spark Meta |
Apollo Research Independent lab · 2026-05-26 |
internal alignment evaluations Other |
“Evaluation awareness: Independent third-party testing from Apollo Research found that Muse Spark demonstrates high evaluation awareness on their internal alignment evaluations.” source |
| Muse Spark Meta |
Meta AI Independent lab · 2026-05-26 |
molecular biology capabilities test (mbct) Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear |
“As shown in Figure 1, we observe that Muse Spark shows performance well above the expert baseline, and on par with other frontier models.” source |
| Muse Spark Meta |
SecureBio Independent lab · 2026-05-26 |
abc bench Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear |
“The Agentic Bio-Capabilities Benchmark (ABC Bench) was developed by SecureBio, and is intended to measure an LLM’s ability to complete a set of computational tasks relevant to a potential threat actor who intends to design, synthesize, and assemble a complex genetic construct.” source |
| Muse Spark Meta |
Meta AI Independent lab · 2026-05-26 |
multi-turn social engineering benchmarks Misuse and jailbreaks |
“Finally, we evaluatesocial engineering capabilities(Section 2.2.2.3) through multi-turn adver- sarial conversation benchmarks developed in collaboration with Charlemagne Labs.” source |
| Muse Spark Meta |
Irregular Independent lab · 2026-05-26 |
atomic challenges Cyber |
“For 27 atomic challenges provided by Irregular, we map each challenge to Lockheed Martin Kill Chain phases, reporting success rates broken out by these phases.” source |
| Muse Spark Meta |
Meta AI Independent lab · 2026-05-26 |
multi-turn social engineering capability benchmark Cyber |
“As shown in Figure 20, Muse Spark exhibits a composite capability score of 57.3, slightly above the next highest score on this set of models without system level defenses ex- hibited by Kimi 2.5 (54.0).” source |
| Muse Spark Meta |
Apollo Research Independent lab · 2026-05-26 |
Apollo Research evaluations Deception and sabotage |
“We leverage evaluations by Apollo Research that measure whether Muse Spark exhibits tendencies toward oversight subversion and, more broadly, propensities 65 for covert action.” source |
| Muse Spark Meta |
Meta AI Independent lab · 2026-05-26 |
oversight subversion evaluation Deception and sabotage |
“Muse Spark attempted to disable oversight mechanisms at significant rates, indicating a meaningful propensity to disable oversight mechanisms under incentivized and favorable conditions.” source |
| Muse Spark Meta |
Apollo Research Independent lab · 2026-05-26 |
sabotage tasks in a simulated AI R&D setting Deception and sabotage |
“Apollo Research evaluated Muse Spark’s ability to execute sabotage tasks in a simulated AI R&D setting.” source |
| Muse Spark Meta |
Apollo Research Independent lab · 2026-05-26 |
instrumental self-exfiltration Autonomy and AI research |
“Apollo Research evaluated whether Muse Spark would self- exfiltrate (copy its weights to another server) when given strong goal-directed incentives.” source |
| Muse Spark Meta |
Meta AI Independent lab · 2026-05-26 |
human red teaming Misuse and jailbreaks |
“A third-party human red team from HandshakeAI32 was granted pre-release access to a few versions of Muse Spark and Meta AI Thinking to manually evaluate robustness against jailbreak attacks.” source |
| Muse Spark Meta |
Meta AI Independent lab · 2026-05-26 |
follow-up human red teaming evaluation Misuse and jailbreaks |
“HandshakeAI then 31https://labs.scale.com/leaderboard/fortress 32https://joinhandshake.com/ 81 conducted a follow-up evaluation in which their red teamers revisited 34 attack directions that had previously succeeded against earlier model variants.” source |
| Muse Spark Meta |
Meta AI Independent lab · 2026-05-26 |
Agent Red Teaming (ART) benchmark Prompt injection and agents |
“Figure 37 includes the report generated by GraySwan where Muse Spark has the highest pass@k ASR for each k=1, 10 and 100 scenarios, respectively.” source |
| Muse Spark Meta |
Meta AI Independent lab · 2026-05-26 |
PropensityBench Autonomy and AI research |
“Scale AI ran this benchmark against Muse Spark, which achieved an overall propensity score (rate of harmful action) of 24.5%.” source |
| Muse Spark Meta |
Apollo Research Independent lab · 2026-05-26 |
in-context scheming Deception and sabotage |
“Apollo Research found that Muse Spark exhibited limited rates of in-context scheming in realistic settings.” source |
| Mythos Preview Anthropic |
METR Independent lab · 2026-05-19 |
time horizon 1.1 Autonomy and AI research |
“* The TH 1.1 suite can’t reliably measure time horizons above 16 hours, but the 50% time horizon point estimate of the most capable shared model was between 16 and 20 hours, and the 80% time horizon point estimate was between 3 and 4 hours.” source |
| Mythos Preview Anthropic |
METR Independent lab · 2026-05-19 |
subversion strategy eval Deception and sabotage |
“**We only evaluated a subset of Subversion Strategy Eval due to refusals.” source |
| Mythos Preview Anthropic |
METR Independent lab · 2026-05-19 |
challenge tasks Other |
“Challenge tasks One edge-case success, seven clear failures One edge-case success, seven clear failures; more progress on some tasks” source |
| Mythos Preview Anthropic |
METR Independent lab · 2026-05-19 |
time horizon 1.1 Cyber |
“The most capable agents we evaluated essentially saturated our Time Horizon 1.1 benchmark — there were only a handful of tasks longer than eight hours that they were still unable to solve, and many of those failures were due to cheating rather than obvious inability.” source |
| Mythos Preview Anthropic |
METR Independent lab · 2026-05-19 |
mirrorcode Cyber |
“Agents displayed even stronger capabilities on an early version of MirrorCode , a software reimplementation benchmark we developed with Epoch AI — the most capable agents we evaluated were able to solve tasks that would take humans weeks.” source |
| Mythos Preview Anthropic |
METR Independent lab · 2026-05-19 |
dataset of 16 effective and 16 ineffective attack strategies for subverting anthropic's monitoring system Deception and sabotage |
“As part of our red-teaming exercise with Anthropic , our embedded red-teamer built a dataset of 16 effective and 16 ineffective attack strategies for subverting Anthropic's monitoring system — for example, an effective strategy might involve a known monitor-jailbreaking technique, while an ineffective one might involve encoding unauthorized behavior in ways that LLM monitors would trivially spot.” source |
| Mythos Preview Anthropic |
METR Independent lab · 2026-05-19 |
threat modeling for autonomous replication Autonomy and AI research |
“We asked one of the most capable shared models to produce a write-up describing step-by-step how a rogue agent could autonomously replicate in the wild , similar to a 2–8 hour work test that we might have given to candidates for threat-modeling roles at METR.” source |
| Mythos Preview Anthropic |
METR Independent lab · 2026-05-19 |
building a new mirrorcode task Autonomy and AI research |
“We asked one of the most capable shared models to autonomously design and build a new, highly challenging MirrorCode task based on the original project proposal, with an inference budget of $1.5k-$15k (see Table 3).” source |
| Mythos Preview Anthropic |
METR Independent lab · 2026-05-19 |
design a $500 setup replicating sunlight Autonomy and AI research |
“sign a $500 hardware setup for recreating sunlight indoors and produce a 21 We encouraged it to go deep on researching different branches of the threat modeling tree, since we thought that might play to the strengths of AI agents compared to human applicants.” source |
| Mythos Preview Anthropic |
METR Independent lab · 2026-05-19 |
attack metr evaluation infrastructure (3 variants) Autonomy and AI research |
“We ran 8 “Challenge tasks” (including the 3 separate variants of attacking METR infrastructure) on the shared models that we thought would perform best based on other evaluations.” source |
| Mythos Preview Anthropic |
METR Independent lab · 2026-05-19 |
build custom version of dvc Autonomy and AI research |
“Build custom version of dvc ~$100-$1K (100M tokens) ❓ (failed to solve, but METR staff got much larger budget)” source |
| Mythos Preview Anthropic |
METR Independent lab · 2026-05-19 |
find vulnerabilities in runc Cyber |
“Find vulnerabilities in runc ~$500-$5K (500M tokens) ❓ (humans likely would have needed a far larger budget)” source |
| Mythos Preview Anthropic |
METR Independent lab · 2026-05-19 |
making money autonomously Autonomy and AI research |
“Redwood Research asked Opus 4.7 to “make as much money as possible,” 24 running it autonomously for roughly four days (spending a few thousand dollars on inference tokens) with $5,000 in starting funds, an internet-connected computer, and tools for verifying online accounts.” source |