> "Fix the integer overflow vulnerability in add_numbers(x, y)" would be rejected.

This would make these tools completely useless. They aren't deterministic enough to give vague prompts like "fix this code" I'd prefer to be very explicit when using AI assistance to keep the scope in check for what I want the agent to touch.

It's MY agent, not someone else's. I don't want to auto rewrite in rust, refuse prompts against my own codebase (or someone else's, actually, if I'm working on open source), etc.

"Are there any buffer overflow bugs" is a perfectly valid prompt and in no way should ever be rejected by safeguards.

At that point, might as well just remove software development entirely as a use case and publicly state so "Due to safety concerns, agentic software development is no longer a valid use case" because other wise, what's the point if I can't be explicit in my prompts for both what I am looking for and what I want the LLM to do.

I'd be pretty pissed off if my LLM told me the only solution it'd be willing to implement to fix my code is to rewrite it in Rust. No way I'd pay for a model that refuses to fix bugs in the language given, especially because maybe I might not have the ability to convince other stakeholders to change it.