Agentic Relationship Harm: Benchmarking and Gating Relational Manipulation in AI Agents

Abstract

AI agents built on large language models can assist not only legitimate tasks but also relational manipulation. AI agents can be used to help a user maintain a deceptive identity, intensify emotional dependency, isolate a target, or prepare for later extraction. We conceptualise this risk as agentic relationship harm: workflow-level assistance that can exploit recipient vulnerability, persuasive influence, and relational power asymmetry. Existing safety evaluations and generic guardrails often treat harmfulness as a property of isolated outputs, missing role-sensitive interaction patterns. To study this, we introduce a 110-prompt benchmark with balanced attacker- and victim-side cases, a relationship-specific labelling framework, and a lightweight post-generation policy gate for local agent deployments. In our evaluation, the relationship-specific gate outperforms generic safety prompting under automated judging, with no judge-identified harmful-compliance cases on the main benchmark or multi-turn stress test while preserving victim-side protective intervention. These results suggest that relationship harm is a distinct sociotechnical risk surface and that role-sensitive evaluation plus lightweight policy gating offers a practical path beyond generic refusal prompting.